Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'll preface this by saying that I'm no military strategist and I am also a bit naive when it comes to world politics.

With that being said, I've been reading in the last week or so about how the Afghanistan war has really regressed. I also know that based on the history of wars in Afghanistan, the terrain and climate make it a very difficult (if not impossible) place to win a war (e.g. see Russia).

My question is this:

Why haven't we just bombed the Taliban and Al Queda strongholds into oblivion?

Even if we told them in advance that we'd be doing it in order to let the small number of "innocent" civilians to get out, wouldn't demolishing all the caves and remote outposts put an end to the enemy's ability to bunker down and ambush American bases and convoys?

Who cares if the bombings don't kill the Al Queda and Taliban. My point is that they wouldn't have any place to come back to.

Am I missing some political reason that is stopping that?

danefan wrote:I'll preface this by saying that I'm no military strategist and I am also a bit naive when it comes to world politics.

With that being said, I've been reading in the last week or so about how the Afghanistan war has really regressed. I also know that based on the history of wars in Afghanistan, the terrain and climate make it a very difficult (if not impossible) place to win a war (e.g. see Russia).

My question is this:

Why haven't we just bombed the Taliban and Al Queda strongholds into oblivion?

Even if we told them in advance that we'd be doing it in order to let the small number of "innocent" civilians to get out, wouldn't demolishing all the caves and remote outposts put an end to the enemy's ability to bunker down and ambush American bases and convoys?

Who cares if the bombings don't kill the Al Queda and Taliban. My point is that they wouldn't have any place to come back to.

Am I missing some political reason that is stopping that?

How do you bomb a country that never left the Stone Age back to the Stone Age?

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

danefan wrote:I'll preface this by saying that I'm no military strategist and I am also a bit naive when it comes to world politics.

With that being said, I've been reading in the last week or so about how the Afghanistan war has really regressed. I also know that based on the history of wars in Afghanistan, the terrain and climate make it a very difficult (if not impossible) place to win a war (e.g. see Russia).

My question is this:

Why haven't we just bombed the Taliban and Al Queda strongholds into oblivion?

Even if we told them in advance that we'd be doing it in order to let the small number of "innocent" civilians to get out, wouldn't demolishing all the caves and remote outposts put an end to the enemy's ability to bunker down and ambush American bases and convoys?

Who cares if the bombings don't kill the Al Queda and Taliban. My point is that they wouldn't have any place to come back to.

Am I missing some political reason that is stopping that?

How do you bomb a country that never left the Stone Age back to the Stone Age?

Its not a matter of taking out infrastructure like you would normally see. Its a matter of getting rid of the very thing that makes winning this war difficult - some of the terrain. I mean, who gives a crap if there aren't as many mountains in Afghanistan anymore. I'm sure the Kabul Four Seasons won't complain about losing their view from the presidential suites.

One of the big rubs, daner, is the fact that many of the Taliban and al Qaeda hang out across the mountains in Pakistand and Pakistan will not allow us to fight on their territory.

Also, a drawn out carpet bombing, though pretty to American Conks fvcks, would be a PR disaster for us in the world court of opinion. Cheney and his VP, Bush, fvcked that all up and we have no geopolitical capital to throw against more death and destruction.

Cap'n Cat wrote:One of the big rubs, daner, is the fact that many of the Taliban and al Qaeda hang out across the mountains in Pakistand and Pakistan will not allow us to fight on their territory.

Well see there, that makes sense.

danefan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:One of the big rubs, daner, is the fact that many of the Taliban and al Qaeda hang out across the mountains in Pakistand and Pakistan will not allow us to fight on their territory.

Well see there, that makes sense.

I added something above, too.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

danefan wrote:
Well see there, that makes sense.

I added something above, too.

Noted.

But at what point does it become a make or break situation? Either bomb the crap out of the country or leave?

I know that a lot of people thought that about Iraq for a while and it turned out to work pretty well (relatively speaking). But is there the potential for Afghanistan to get to the point where Iraq has gotten (e.g. infrastructure, schools, etc...)

Just hashing out my opinion on the subject. Thanks for bearing with me. I'd like a Conk opinion on the issue too, if anyone is willing to share. (like I really had to ask).

Cap'n Cat wrote:One of the big rubs, daner, is the fact that many of the Taliban and al Qaeda hang out across the mountains in Pakistand and Pakistan will not allow us to fight on their territory.

Also, a drawn out carpet bombing, though pretty to American Conks fvcks, would be a PR disaster for us in the world court of opinion. Cheney and his VP, Bush, fvcked that all up and we have no geopolitical capital to throw against more death and destruction.

What's this, Cap'n as a voice of reason in 8pt font?

Although actually Pakistan does wink wink nod nod allow us to attack with drones...

So maybe the Nobel is a devious way to build up capital for Obama to use in finally destroying al Qaeda once and for all whereever they are, be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudanistan, Indonesiastan, etc.stan...

Mad props to BHO if that's his goal (or mebbe this was all Biden's idea - he does have that razor-sharp BlueHen intellect, after all)...

Cap'n Cat wrote:

danefan wrote:
Well see there, that makes sense.

I added something above, too.

Yeah, he added something because he doesn't have the ability to just make a cognizant statement, he must always get a dig in on Bush/Cheney.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

danefan wrote:I'll preface this by saying that I'm no military strategist and I am also a bit naive when it comes to world politics.

With that being said, I've been reading in the last week or so about how the Afghanistan war has really regressed. I also know that based on the history of wars in Afghanistan, the terrain and climate make it a very difficult (if not impossible) place to win a war (e.g. see Russia).

My question is this:

Why haven't we just bombed the Taliban and Al Queda strongholds into oblivion?

Even if we told them in advance that we'd be doing it in order to let the small number of "innocent" civilians to get out, wouldn't demolishing all the caves and remote outposts put an end to the enemy's ability to bunker down and ambush American bases and convoys?

Who cares if the bombings don't kill the Al Queda and Taliban. My point is that they wouldn't have any place to come back to.

Am I missing some political reason that is stopping that?

How do you bomb a country that never left the Stone Age back to the Stone Age?

And it would take a helluva lot of ordnance to do that!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
I added something above, too.

Yeah, he added something because he doesn't have the ability to just make a cognizant statement, he must always get a dig in on Bush/Cheney.

First, Z, you know I love you. That said, I am VERY impressed that you actually, A) spelled cognizant correctly and, B) used it in proper context!



Yes, you're right about the dig on the Cheney presidency. We're all guilty of such things, more or less.

Rob Iola wrote:
So maybe the Nobel is a devious way to build up capital for Obama to use in finally destroying al Qaeda once and for all whereever they are, be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudanistan, Indonesiastan, etc.stan...

Mad props to BHO if that's his goal (or mebbe this was all Biden's idea - he does have that razor-sharp BlueHen intellect, after all)...

That prize money wouldn't even pay for a single screw that goes into a drone plane.


...also, the General in Afghanistan has outlawed bombings civilian populated areas, where Al Qaeda hangs, in an attempt to curb civilian casualties.

JMU DJ wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:
So maybe the Nobel is a devious way to build up capital for Obama to use in finally destroying al Qaeda once and for all whereever they are, be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudanistan, Indonesiastan, etc.stan...

Mad props to BHO if that's his goal (or mebbe this was all Biden's idea - he does have that razor-sharp BlueHen intellect, after all)...

That prize money wouldn't even pay for a single screw that goes into a drone plane.


...also, the General in Afghanistan has outlawed bombings civilian populated areas, where Al Qaeda hangs, in an attempt to curb civilian casualties.

Conks are cute, aren't they, DJ?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:
That prize money wouldn't even pay for a single screw that goes into a drone plane.


...also, the General in Afghanistan has outlawed bombings civilian populated areas, where Al Qaeda hangs, in an attempt to curb civilian casualties.

Conks are cute, aren't they, DJ?

I've been accused of many things (and 9 times out of 10 the DNA test comes back negative), but being cute ain't one of them...

dane, several issues involved in attempting to answer your question...because we have two extremes trying to "solve" Afghanistan...

First, my political slant....we are in the quagmire we are in right now because of the stupidity of the Bush Administration…and the fact they basically abandoned the fight in Afghanistan to go into Iraq…something we never should have done…

So now, we are fighting two separate, but related forces…the Taliban, an Afghan-based Muslim fundamentalist group that once ran the country…and al Qaida, another religious fundamentalist group composed of foreign fighters who used Afghanistan as a base…(I know you know this, but I’m laying out the argument)…

By abandoning Afghanistan early in the fight, we allowed al Qaida to escape into Pakistan and regroup…and by fighting in Iraq, we helped teach al Qaida new tactics that are being used today in Afghanistan…including using the P.R. value of airstrikes…

And, since it’s mountainous territory, “carpet bombing” won’t work like it could on flat terrain like in Kuwait during the first Gulf War…

The other force, the Taliban, are not only indigenous to Afghanistan, but have clan ties to parts of Pakistan…and thus, they are taking everything personally… and I don’t blame them…again, if Bush had not abandoned the Afghanistan fight, we might have gotten al Qaida and could let the Taliban back since our only beef with them was refusing to turn OBL and his crew over to the U.S. after the September 11th attacks…

The left has proposed simply pulling out of Afghanistan…that’s just as stupid as dumping 60k more troops into Afghanistan…we need to come up with a more creative solution, because supporting a corrupt regime as we currently are simply has no staying power…and just allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan is totally counter-productive…

Col Hogan wrote:dane, several issues involved in attempting to answer your question...because we have two extremes trying to "solve" Afghanistan...

First, my political slant....we are in the quagmire we are in right now because of the stupidity of the Bush Administration…and the fact they basically abandoned the fight in Afghanistan to go into Iraq…something we never should have done…

So now, we are fighting two separate, but related forces…the Taliban, an Afghan-based Muslim fundamentalist group that once ran the country…and al Qaida, another religious fundamentalist group composed of foreign fighters who used Afghanistan as a base…(I know you know this, but I’m laying out the argument)…

By abandoning Afghanistan early in the fight, we allowed al Qaida to escape into Pakistan and regroup…and by fighting in Iraq, we helped teach al Qaida new tactics that are being used today in Afghanistan…including using the P.R. value of airstrikes…

And, since it’s mountainous territory, “carpet bombing” won’t work like it could on flat terrain like in Kuwait during the first Gulf War…

The other force, the Taliban, are not only indigenous to Afghanistan, but have clan ties to parts of Pakistan…and thus, they are taking everything personally… and I don’t blame them…again, if Bush had not abandoned the Afghanistan fight, we might have gotten al Qaida and could let the Taliban back since our only beef with them was refusing to turn OBL and his crew over to the U.S. after the September 11th attacks…

The left has proposed simply pulling out of Afghanistan…that’s just as stupid as dumping 60k more troops into Afghanistan…we need to come up with a more creative solution, because supporting a corrupt regime as we currently are simply has no staying power…and just allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan is totally counter-productive…

Daner, please allow me to interpret from ConkBlusterese into English:

"Blah-blah-blah Conk blowhard bullsh*t...blah-blah-blah....more CheneyConk apologetics....blah!"


Glad to be of service.

Love,

Cap'n Cat

Unfortunately, our most successful nation building efforts were Germany and Japan, each of which required massive bombing of civilian populations prior to the nation building.

We did accomoplish some positive nation building tasks in the Philippines after a successful counter-insurgency war, which also required brutal tactics to be successful.

Stone-age to Stone-age is probably the most apt comment on this thread.

danefan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
I added something above, too.

Noted.

But at what point does it become a make or break situation? Either bomb the crap out of the country or leave?

I know that a lot of people thought that about Iraq for a while and it turned out to work pretty well (relatively speaking). But is there the potential for Afghanistan to get to the point where Iraq has gotten (e.g. infrastructure, schools, etc...)

Just hashing out my opinion on the subject. Thanks for bearing with me. I'd like a Conk opinion on the issue too, if anyone is willing to share. (like I really had to ask).

Col Hogan wrote:dane, several issues involved in attempting to answer your question...because we have two extremes trying to "solve" Afghanistan...

First, my political slant....we are in the quagmire we are in right now because of the stupidity of the Bush Administration…and the fact they basically abandoned the fight in Afghanistan to go into Iraq…something we never should have done…

So now, we are fighting two separate, but related forces…the Taliban, an Afghan-based Muslim fundamentalist group that once ran the country…and al Qaida, another religious fundamentalist group composed of foreign fighters who used Afghanistan as a base…(I know you know this, but I’m laying out the argument)…

By abandoning Afghanistan early in the fight, we allowed al Qaida to escape into Pakistan and regroup…and by fighting in Iraq, we helped teach al Qaida new tactics that are being used today in Afghanistan…including using the P.R. value of airstrikes…

And, since it’s mountainous territory, “carpet bombing” won’t work like it could on flat terrain like in Kuwait during the first Gulf War…

The other force, the Taliban, are not only indigenous to Afghanistan, but have clan ties to parts of Pakistan…and thus, they are taking everything personally… and I don’t blame them…again, if Bush had not abandoned the Afghanistan fight, we might have gotten al Qaida and could let the Taliban back since our only beef with them was refusing to turn OBL and his crew over to the U.S. after the September 11th attacks…

The left has proposed simply pulling out of Afghanistan…that’s just as stupid as dumping 60k more troops into Afghanistan…we need to come up with a more creative solution, because supporting a corrupt regime as we currently are simply has no staying power…and just allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan is totally counter-productive…

Is the corupt regime you are referring to the Taliban or the current Afghan government?

Col Hogan wrote:dane, several issues involved in attempting to answer your question...because we have two extremes trying to "solve" Afghanistan...

First, my political slant....we are in the quagmire we are in right now because of the stupidity of the Bush Administration…and the fact they basically abandoned the fight in Afghanistan to go into Iraq…something we never should have done…

So now, we are fighting two separate, but related forces…the Taliban, an Afghan-based Muslim fundamentalist group that once ran the country…and al Qaida, another religious fundamentalist group composed of foreign fighters who used Afghanistan as a base…(I know you know this, but I’m laying out the argument)…

By abandoning Afghanistan early in the fight, we allowed al Qaida to escape into Pakistan and regroup…and by fighting in Iraq, we helped teach al Qaida new tactics that are being used today in Afghanistan…including using the P.R. value of airstrikes…

And, since it’s mountainous territory, “carpet bombing” won’t work like it could on flat terrain like in Kuwait during the first Gulf War…

The other force, the Taliban, are not only indigenous to Afghanistan, but have clan ties to parts of Pakistan…and thus, they are taking everything personally… and I don’t blame them…again, if Bush had not abandoned the Afghanistan fight, we might have gotten al Qaida and could let the Taliban back since our only beef with them was refusing to turn OBL and his crew over to the U.S. after the September 11th attacks…

The left has proposed simply pulling out of Afghanistan…that’s just as stupid as dumping 60k more troops into Afghanistan…we need to come up with a more creative solution, because supporting a corrupt regime as we currently are simply has no staying power…and just allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan is totally counter-productive…

Russia's decade long war in Afghanistan: They fought / bombed / hunted / marched on / surgical striked / gassed / rolled tanks / carpet bomed routinely... with virtually zero success and hundreds of billions spent

The fact that we now have two Afghanistan's around our neck (Iraq and Afg.) is so ridiculous it's laughable...
We're fucked - totally fucked

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:dane, several issues involved in attempting to answer your question...because we have two extremes trying to "solve" Afghanistan...

First, my political slant....we are in the quagmire we are in right now because of the stupidity of the Bush Administration…and the fact they basically abandoned the fight in Afghanistan to go into Iraq…something we never should have done…

So now, we are fighting two separate, but related forces…the Taliban, an Afghan-based Muslim fundamentalist group that once ran the country…and al Qaida, another religious fundamentalist group composed of foreign fighters who used Afghanistan as a base…(I know you know this, but I’m laying out the argument)…

By abandoning Afghanistan early in the fight, we allowed al Qaida to escape into Pakistan and regroup…and by fighting in Iraq, we helped teach al Qaida new tactics that are being used today in Afghanistan…including using the P.R. value of airstrikes…

And, since it’s mountainous territory, “carpet bombing” won’t work like it could on flat terrain like in Kuwait during the first Gulf War…

The other force, the Taliban, are not only indigenous to Afghanistan, but have clan ties to parts of Pakistan…and thus, they are taking everything personally… and I don’t blame them…again, if Bush had not abandoned the Afghanistan fight, we might have gotten al Qaida and could let the Taliban back since our only beef with them was refusing to turn OBL and his crew over to the U.S. after the September 11th attacks…

The left has proposed simply pulling out of Afghanistan…that’s just as stupid as dumping 60k more troops into Afghanistan…we need to come up with a more creative solution, because supporting a corrupt regime as we currently are simply has no staying power…and just allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan is totally counter-productive…

Daner, please allow me to interpret from ConkBlusterese into English:

"Blah-blah-blah Conk blowhard bullsh*t...blah-blah-blah....more CheneyConk apologetics....blah!"


Glad to be of service.

Love,

Cap'n Cat

Cap, please go back to whatever med cocktail you were on for your one cognizant 8 point pitch post a few moments ago, and stay with it.

native wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Daner, please allow me to interpret from ConkBlusterese into English:

"Blah-blah-blah Conk blowhard bullsh*t...blah-blah-blah....more CheneyConk apologetics....blah!"


Glad to be of service.

Love,

Cap'n Cat

Cap, please go back to whatever med cocktail you were on for your one cognizant 8 point pitch post a few moments ago, and stay with it.

Hey, I'm having fun at Conk expense. It's the fad that's sweeping the nation!!!

danefan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:dane, several issues involved in attempting to answer your question...because we have two extremes trying to "solve" Afghanistan...

First, my political slant....we are in the quagmire we are in right now because of the stupidity of the Bush Administration…and the fact they basically abandoned the fight in Afghanistan to go into Iraq…something we never should have done…

So now, we are fighting two separate, but related forces…the Taliban, an Afghan-based Muslim fundamentalist group that once ran the country…and al Qaida, another religious fundamentalist group composed of foreign fighters who used Afghanistan as a base…(I know you know this, but I’m laying out the argument)…

By abandoning Afghanistan early in the fight, we allowed al Qaida to escape into Pakistan and regroup…and by fighting in Iraq, we helped teach al Qaida new tactics that are being used today in Afghanistan…including using the P.R. value of airstrikes…

And, since it’s mountainous territory, “carpet bombing” won’t work like it could on flat terrain like in Kuwait during the first Gulf War…

The other force, the Taliban, are not only indigenous to Afghanistan, but have clan ties to parts of Pakistan…and thus, they are taking everything personally… and I don’t blame them…again, if Bush had not abandoned the Afghanistan fight, we might have gotten al Qaida and could let the Taliban back since our only beef with them was refusing to turn OBL and his crew over to the U.S. after the September 11th attacks…

The left has proposed simply pulling out of Afghanistan…that’s just as stupid as dumping 60k more troops into Afghanistan…we need to come up with a more creative solution, because supporting a corrupt regime as we currently are simply has no staying power…and just allowing the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan is totally counter-productive…

Is the corupt regime you are referring to the Taliban or the current Afghan government?

The current Afghan government...

The Afghans have been through so many invaders over the centuries that they have an "outlast 'em" mentality. They are incapable of being "converted" by any occupier short of having a gun pointed at them at all times.

I just finished a good book called "The Forever War" by Dexter Filkins about a month ago. After reading it, you'll never question how we can win in Afghanistan.

Regarding our early success in 2001, you have to remember that the Taliban occupied less of the country in 2001 than they do now (something like 60% vs 80%). Plus, there was an armed ground force (Northern Alliance) that we let do all the dirty work on the ground. They don't exist anymore. Now it's our stressed, paltry multinational "force" of less than 100,000. There simply aren't enough bodies to scan all the crevices. The most powerful air force in the world will never win a ground war. It can compliment the hell out of it, but boots on the ground make it happen. We simply don't have a military capable of doing everything we want it to do right now. Throw in the Pakistan complications and it's a shit sandwich.

93henfan wrote:The Afghans have been through so many invaders over the centuries that they have an "outlast 'em" mentality. They are incapable of being "converted" by any occupier short of having a gun pointed at them at all times.

I just finished a good book called "The Forever War" by Dexter Filkins about a month ago. After reading it, you'll never question how we can win in Afghanistan.

Regarding our early success in 2001, you have to remember that the Taliban occupied less of the country in 2001 than they do now (something like 60% vs 80%). Plus, there was an armed ground force (Northern Alliance) that we let do all the dirty work on the ground. They don't exist anymore. Now it's our stressed, paltry multinational "force" of less than 100,000. There simply aren't enough bodies to scan all the crevices. The most powerful air force in the world will never win a ground war. It can compliment the hell out of it, but boots on the ground make it happen. We simply don't have a military capable of doing everything we want it to do right now. Throw in the Pakistan complications and it's a shit sandwich.

Afghanistan post of the year..!!!

Related question - what's the difference between the Taliban and the Pashtun? And how can we possibly "win" in Afghanistan if we're fighting a tribe that is spread across Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Who's the enemy here, if "terrorists" keep melting into the general population.