Exterminate The Taliban

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Read-Only, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    4. Secure supply routes for Afghanistan. By air lift.

    Then let NATO-ISAF supply fully 100 percent of its cargo by air by increasing by 5-fold the airport infrastructure and capacity of Afghanistan, building perhaps one or two more big hub airports around the country or a few more long runways and additional cargo handling facilities at existing airports like Bagram or Kandahar - to accept the incoming international flights, such as Hercules C-130s, then from those large hub airports transfer the cargo into smaller planes to fly from new short runways at those few hub airports on to dozens of new smaller airports all around Afghanistan.

    To pay for this, money can be reallocated to airport construction by rationalising some of the 200 most expensive and remote forward operating bases and combat outposts. Close those which cost more than they are worth.

    Retreat to the really important bases, build airfields for them and build secure supply route defences to and from them and that's a very strong defensive position from which to launch offensive operations against the enemy.

    No longer will the legitimate military and civilian traffic require the permission of warlords to travel along Afghanistan's highways.

    Securing an air base. Example - Camp Bastion / Camp Leatherneck

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Bastion Airport (NATO Channel on YouTube)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well here's another reason for Bastion to exist - to become a logistics hub for operations across Afghanistan, well beyond Helmand province.

    With strategic airlift capacity, think strategically. A few more runways like the new longer runway at Bastion and Afghanistan's airfield infrastructure would be sufficient for all of NATO-ISAF force supplies to reach Afghanistan by air - removing dependence and vulnerability on Pakistan's land routes and eliminating the extortion and corruption along the Afghanistan ground supply chain, as detailed in Warlord, Inc..

    After supplies are landed at the few huge hub airports - Bagram, Kandahar and Bastion - cargo could be transferred into smaller airplanes using adjacent smaller runways for connecting flights out to smaller airfields associated with NATO-ISAF forward operating bases.

    Whether by luck or by design Bastion is well chosen in being far from a population centre which makes it politically feasible to impose a rigorous security exclusion zone on the ground for many miles around the airport.

    Controlling the ground far around a military airport is very necessary to defend the incoming aircraft against missile attack by ensuring no enemy can get close enough to launch a missile anywhere near below where the planes descend to land.

    Landing at night is not a sufficient defence. Aircraft engines and their exhaust jets are very hot and infra-red shines just as brightly at night for missiles to lock on to.

    We cannot assume that the Taliban will be unable to source the most advanced ground-to-air missiles. We should assume they will source such missiles and take the necessary security precautions.

    So at Bastion NATO-ISAF must control the ground in a vast security perimeter out to the horizon and beyond which means closing the nearby road to Afghan traffic and providing an alternative circuitous route for civilian traffic.

    I need hardly mention the military, economic and political disaster of allowing the enemy to bring down one of our big aircraft. So this must not be allowed to happen. Therefore a very wide secure ground exclusion zone around Bastion should be imposed.

    In addition, I need hardly remind people of Al Qaeda's willingness to use aircraft themselves as weapons and therefore airport air defences need to be operational and alert at all times, not just when scheduled aircraft are landing.

    The progress at Bastion is very promising for the whole Afghanistan mission. It shows the way ahead.

    We can contemplate one day removing the constraints limiting NATO-ISAF supplies reaching Afghanistan by air. From a limit of about 20 percent now, I foresee a 100 percent supply-into-Afghanistan-by-air strategy as both feasible and desirable.

    Securing the land around Camp Bastion

    So it matters that Camp Bastion is well defended and I want to make sure we are using the correct tactics to secure the land around any airfield camp we are defending.

    So I have some new comments to make which occurred to me after seeing that photograph of our soldiers patrolling through poppy fields. I am wondering if there are poppy fields in that 600 square kilometres around Camp Bastion?

    Anyway, we don't want or need any high vegetation around the air field which would allow insurgents cover to sneak close to the base, either to launch missile attacks or to plant anti-personnel mines, I.E.D.s or anything else.

    Much better if the land is cleared of all tall vegetation so that it is much easier to keep clear of threats. Short grass is good.

    That may mean buying out farmers who are growing crops, buying their land around the camp, compensating them but only if they are growing worthwhile crops.

    If they are growing poppy fields then they don't deserve compensation in my book.

    Either way there is a big job for our engineers to clear the land all around the camp of all cover useful to an enemy. So that's clearing all the 600 square kilometres which was mentioned as being patrolled by our forces.

    It is a big job to keep such a large area of land free of cover and yes it is OK to hire local Afghan labour to help with keeping the vegetation down. After all, we will have put some local farmers out of living so they'll be looking for employment.

    It might be an idea to have grazing animals on the land to keep the vegetation down but I would not be surprised if the Taliban shoot grazing animals if they can but if they do that's a reminder to us that the Taliban are still out there if a reminder is ever needed.

    I assume in a dry land like Afghanistan that burning vegetation is easily done and that'll be the easiest way to clear the land I suspect. So I approve a "scorched earth" policy.

    At night when it is not so easy to distinguish between a farmer tending his grazing animals and an insurgent pretending to be that, I suggest that the 600 square kilometres should be an exclusion zone for everyone except Camp Bastion personnel. So all local Afghan workers who clear vegetation during the day need to go back to homes outside the 600 square kilometres every night.

    This is the attitude NATO - ISAF and our base security forces need to take. We need to take ownership of all the 600 square kilometres of land which we are patrolling around Camp Bastion and optimise it for security.

    It would be the same outrage if the Afghan government dares to suggest that we don't take ownership of the surrounding land, don't clear the land, and should instead allow existing cover for insurgents in land surrounding Camp Bastion as it would be if the Afghan government dared to suggest that we open the doors of the airbase itself to the Taliban.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Sadly, the cold war put the West on the opposite site of Soviet efforts to civilise Afghanistan. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan who in turn were supported by the West.

    Now it's different. Now we are on the same side, I trust.

    [video=youtube;s7_FS1zKYm4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7_FS1zKYm4[/video]
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Peter Dow


    You seem to have put quite a bit of thought and planning into this.

    A disturbing amount of thought and planning. A few points in your 'how to war' instructions..

    Fighting your way will also create more enemies. So where does it end?

    I would suggest, especially seeing that you are new here, that you leave these types of insults out of your posts.

    While I am not a fan of the Taliban and am actually a firm critic of their practices in the past, I have to ask, how has the Taliban harmed you exactly?

    Also, your war-mongering looks more like an attempt to protect and ensure your supply of oil. Seeing that the US has in the past funded and provided logistical support to many of the oil-rich Arab kingdoms and countries in the past to fulfill their own goals, how exactly do you expect to look past that giant pink hypocritical elephant in the room?

    Perhaps, instead of making more enemies than you already have, you should cease and desist in attempting to force regime changes and trying to implement your rule over other countries?

    Just perhaps?

    So Pakistan is now also your enemy?

    I must have missed that memo!

    Your solution is pretty much a scorched earth policy. Which would result in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians.

    And you wonder why they hate the West if Westerner's such as yourself are pushing for outright genocide?

    Of course. No genocide would be complete without taking control of the airwaves!

    Why do you have to occupy?

    Why can't you just stay home like normal people?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    I really can't believe you are such a sucker for war propaganda. This "news" piece has had it's exactly intended affect on you. To enrage you, to get you to support MORE useless war.

    Guess what? It's their land. It's their culture. Let them do whatever the hell they want to with it. If it occured in Kentucky, or Ohio, or Wyoming, I'd say sure, let's do something about it. Otherwise, you know what, that isn't what we went over there for, let's get the hell out. We can't bring peace and justice to every square kilometer of the Earth, I'm not ever sure we can afford to do it here in the U.S. It is time to get the hell out.

    This is war propaganda to get the mindless sheep in the U.S. to continue to support the military-industrial complexes production of arms and equipment, and the pay of personnel and their expedition. How is this quantitatively different than giving food stamps and welfare to the poor. I don't see how bringing justice to non-Americans is "fighting" for our freedom. I agree with my anarchist friend, if we continue to support the troops in their misguided missions that do nothing to support our national interests, they are no better than wards of the state and welfare queens.
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Yeah, yeah, blah, blah.

    To my way of thinking YOU are the "mindless" one here. Perhaps not in the states you listed but you are certainly IGNORING what they've done in other states here. Phooey on your senseless nonsense - the U.S. Spain, England and other places are most certainly NOT their land!!
     
  9. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    The consequences of a poorly-thought-out security plan are lots of dead innocents. Example, the 1000s killed in 9/11 was disturbing.

    The consequences of a poorly-thought-out war plan are lots of dead soldiers and civilians. Example, the 1000s killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are disturbing.

    A well-thought-out security plan and war plan, which secures people and wins wars efficiently at minimum cost of lives is much less disturbing than the aforementioned alternatives of poorly-thought-out plans.


    Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any serious points people would like to raise.

    No fighting my way creates less enemies. Enemies are generated by enemy propaganda. It ends when you switch off the enemy propaganda thereby ending the production of enemies. The process can then be reversed by positive friendly propaganda which converts potential enemies into friends.

    Example, when the Nazi propaganda machine was switched off at end of World War 2 and the Germans were told by our propaganda that we were friends building a new Germany, new Europe etc, the Germans were converted into being our friends.

    Well as it happens on this occasion, spidergoat responded elegantly to my somewhat sarcastic reply by asking me to describe my plan. A little bit of good diplomacy goes a long way. Agreed it doesn't always end that way and that's a pity because the internet provides humanity a marvellous tool to communicate with each other and to find solutions to the problems of the world. Too often, the opportunity the internet offers is missed when people fail to communicate.

    Harm my friends, harm me. I am a friend to all of humanity. So when the Taliban harm anyone, they harm me. The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda who have been waging war on people in the West. In Scotland, there was an attack on Glasgow airport. London was bombed. New York was attacked.

    I don't much care for the way the Taliban murder Afghans and Pakistanis either. When the Taliban harm these people they harm me. An injury to one, is an injury to all. This is human solidarity. Some of us humans feel solidarity. Some do not. I am sorry for you if you do not care for your fellow humans.

    The control of oil by hostile Arab regimes choosing to spend their spare cash from the profits of oil sales on global jihad is the problem for peace and security in the world. It is important to have those profits spent wisely - on services and development for the Arab people.

    Ensuring the supply of oil is not the issue. There is a global market in oil as in other things. This point is often misunderstood.


    I am a critic of the past practice of putting the short-term commercial interests of global oil companies before the long-term interests of peace and security for the world. I don't do deals with rotten regimes and I am not bound by any previous deals. Incidentally, neither is the US. Donald Rumsfeld went to shake hands with Saddam Hussein one time then years later he was the US Defence Secretary invading Iraq to arrest the very same Saddam Hussein. So things change and for the better.

    I am attempting to change regimes that are already hostile to some extent or another. Those regimes impose the undemocratic rule of kings and dictators. I am a democrat seeking rule by all the people, not rule by myself.

    The Pakistani state is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Pakistani people are not sponsors of terrorism. The state is our enemy. The people are our friends.

    You and many others have missed much. Did you watch that 2-hour BBC documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" which I posted above?

    Only for burning dry tall vegetation to reduce cover for enemy attacking troops. Typically, this scorched earth policy would only apply within 6 miles or so of a defended base or supply route.

    My scorched earth would be no more scorched than the earth gets in numerous natural fires which happen daily in the world. I don't intend any "scorched earth" policy as a metaphor for genocide.

    There's no intention on my part to do anything which would result in that outcome. Indeed making sure that Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain under the control of responsible people by defeating the jihadis who threaten to assume control over Pakistan is absolutely necessary to be sure to avoid the deaths of millions of people. No-one put that better than Benazir Bhutto.

    [video=youtube;TIScjm7JGVc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIScjm7JGVc[/video]

    I am not pushing for any kind of genocide. This is an offensive insult against me which I'd rather you did not repeat.

    All airwaves are controlled by someone. The question is whether you are content to have the airwaves controlled as they are now by jihadists waging a global unholy war which, who knows, might end in genocide against us if we were foolish enough to let it happen?

    This is how you win. You might as well ask a chess player, why do you attack the king?

    Personally speaking, I stay at home all the time. I am a banned scientist excluded from the local universities here in Aberdeen and threatened with life imprisonment by the Queen's state, courts, police etc, because the ruling elite here don't like individuals who dare to express their own opinions.

    People who know me say I should get out more. I'd love to but I am not welcome anywhere I'd like to be, you know, with fellow scientists there, with people who at least have a chance of understanding me, even if that is never guaranteed.

    Peter Dow's legal battles with Aberdeen's universities

    So I am home alone now as I always am. The internet is the only place I have to go.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Not sure if you really thought through your plan. You want to start a nuclear war with Pakistan? They would nuke India probably and perhaps join Iran against us. They are a proud people who would not be passive in the face of deliberate bombings of civilians. Even if for some weird reason they had no problem with you bombing their radical universities, this wouldn't destroy the Taliban, which consists of people already out of university. As far as securing supply lines into Afghanistan, we are leaving there in 2014, what new initiative would you be supplying? No one wants to escalate this into another Vietnam.
     
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    We don't need YOUR input on the subject. Especially since most people here are aware of your strong anti-American views - despite your having lived here for a long time and enjoying the rewards of having done so.

    We Americans are keenly aware that you are nothing but a frothing mouth taking cheap shots at our country every chance you get. And there is NO civil war brewing here - that's just more of your senseless nonsense talking. Yes, we have some pretty strong political issues but we will work them out, just as we always have - through the ballot box, not bullets as YOU would try to claim.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Didn't you know? The Taliban are a people now, not just a cancer on normal Afghan and Pakistan society. And they are innocent people! LOL
     
  13. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Isn't it more likely that you have not thought my plan through? After all, I've been working on the plan for years. You were ready to rubbish my plan without even watching a relevant video I posted.

    No. I want to be sure that Pakistan does not escalate the war bringing their full military might to bear in defence of the Taliban. I get as sure as I can be about that by pointing out to the Pakistani state that NATO has bigger, better, more accurate nukes than they do and a nuclear war is not one in which Pakistan could possibly prevail so get real and don't escalate the war in defence of the Taliban.

    By pointing out that Pakistan is outmatched in a nuclear war of any kind, I advise Pakistan to let the Taliban fight their own battles, or advise them to surrender.


    It makes no sense for Pakistan to nuke India in a conflict with the West. My plan involves NATO bombing the Taliban in Pakistan. We don't need to use bases in India to do that.

    Your suggestion reminds me of the time when Iraq was being invaded, Saddam ordered his scud missiles to attack Israel to change the terms of the conflict. It didn't work for Saddam and it wouldn't work for pro-Taliban fascists in Pakistan either.

    The jihadi university does not count as a "civilian" facility. It is a para-military indoctrination base, inciting soldiers to war. I do not propose to attack any civilian targets, at all.

    Taking out their indoctrination bases would stem the flow of new recruits to the Taliban, leaving the remaining ones in the field to be mopped up whenever they showed themselves on the battlefield.

    I would point out that the Taliban has killed many Pakistani civilians and in the long run, eliminating the Taliban will save more Pakistani civilian lives. We are fighting to defend Pakistani civilians as well as Afghan and Western civilians. That's our aim; that's our purpose; that should be a factor in all offensive actions we take. Giving fair warning that we view the Jihadi university as a military target would allow the authorities the opportunity to close the base or at least evacuate the area of civilians.


    Well President Obama may not be president in 2014. He did withdraw all his forces from Iraq so if he is re-elected, I suppose he could do the same in Afghanistan if he wanted to. If the Americans leave, then the other NATO forces will probably leave also, in which case our supply problems into Afghanistan will be over though the threat from the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Pakistan would likely be intensified by a complete withdrawal of NATO forces.

    Anyway, I am discussing my plan, not the president's plan. My plan doesn't specify how many NATO troops we should need to keep stationed there though I do favour permanent NATO bases there if they can be securely supplied in the manner I have described. My plan actually describes a supply route which is defended by Afghan forces, so those could be auxiliary to NATO or Afghan national forces. The need for secure supply into Afghanistan doesn't disappear if the West withdraws most or all of our forces.

    My concern and advice is that whatever troops the West has there are well defended, securely supplied so that the casualty rate is stemmed. We do that not by numbers of troops alone but by the correct configuration of deployment, by not having troops thinly spread out but more compactly deployed so as more easily to defend each other, watch each other's flank and supplied via secure routes, not driving over mined roads.

    The new initiative I have suggested is an escalated bombing campaign of enemy targets in Pakistan.

    For any potential military confrontation with Pakistan, it might be prudent to build bomb-proof underground shelters for all our Afghan military bases - shelters for people and for equipment, vehicles, aircraft and so on, just in case there are any Pakistani retaliatory missile attacks or other bombing attempted on our Afghan bases. Misunderstandings and false alarms happen and it's better to have a bomb shelter to shelter in while you figure out who if anyone is attacking you before you launch any counter-strike. Having no bomb-shelters makes people nervous and more on a hair-trigger to retaliate to any perceived attack.

    The NATO bases in Afghanistan are the ones closest to Pakistan and so those are the easiest for the Pakistani military to attack, so preparing bomb shelters would be wise I think.

    Another associated facility with this initiative would be to have rescue helicopters based in Afghanistan to go and rescue any downed pilots involved in bombing raids.

    Well the poor generals we have had have called for surges and more troops without having a good strategy of how to use those extra troops.

    So you are wrong. The existing generals might well lead us into "another Vietnam". The US generals came out of Vietnam still being in charge. So I suspect our existing generals would settle for "another Vietnam" in Afghanistan and come out with many troops dead but themselves still in charge. They'd prefer that to some outsider strategist like me being drafted in to run their wars for them.

    One thing I have learned in my life is that the people in charge are most concerned above all things to keep their position in society, to keep their job, to keep people thinking they are doing a good job, even if they aren't really. Maybe I have been unlucky in the people I have had dealings with as a scientist?

    But I suspect that if "another Vietnam" keeps those in charge now still in charge tomorrow then "another Vietnam" is what they'd give us.

    Very well intentioned American patriots like John McCain who fought bravely in Vietnam, and whom I like and admire very much, might well escalate this conflict into another Vietnam. Vietnam was escalation without strategy leading to defeat. My plan is strategic and therefore would not lead to a military disaster like Vietnam.
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Pakistan is not wholly in the service of the Taliban, only certain parts of their military. We run the risk of alienating an ally in the war on terror. We are currently treading a fine line with Pakistan, they are allowing our very effective drone strikes. I'm not very encouraged by your approach to a possible nuclear war with Pakistan. Who cares if our nukes are bigger? In the chaos, it's possible that the Taliban gain access to those nukes! Your approach is rational from a soldier on the ground standpoint, but I'm not sure you are taking into account the larger chess game. It's very easy to believe that superior firepower will win the day, but it won't change the minds of militant Islamists. All they have to do is hide out in the mountains and wait for us to go away.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Also, depends on which Taliban you're talking about. The Pakistanis are supporting the Afghan Taliban as leverage on the future governance of Afghanistan, but they are not so keen on the Pakistani Taliban that wants to overthrow them.
     
  16. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    In Pakistan, the history of military dictatorship suggests to me it is more likely that the Taliban serve the purpose of pro-military-dictatorship fascists rather than the military serving a supreme leader cleric as they seem to in, say, the Iranian Islamic Republic.

    The Taliban is simply one of a number of terrorist groups that the military fascists use as proxies to attack their enemies with plausible deniability. For example, the terrorists who conducted the 2008 Mumbai attacks were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based terrorist group. It is likely this other terrorist group is optimised by the ISI to attack India. The Taliban is optimised by the ISI to take control of Afghanistan.

    These remote-control proxies are not as reliable and accurately controllable for the military fascists as the regular military - indeed one such terrorist group attempted to assassinate Musharraf as the BBC documentary explains and he then ordered the conventional military to counter-attack to put them back in their box.

    So the relationship between the terrorists and their military controllers in the ISI is complex, secretive and therefore difficult to analyse but it is not as simple as you describe.

    Our allies in the war in terror have been and are being systematically terrorised into silence, driven into exile or assassinated, as was Benazir Bhutto, as have others who have dared to oppose the rule of the military fascists and their jihadi terrorists allies.

    The greater risk is to fail to defend our allies in Pakistan by failing to confront the fascists in Pakistan and to sit back wringing our hands as they eliminate our allies. The state is not our ally. The state is already hostile and will get increasingly hostile until we start fighting to strengthen the hand of our allies by taking the fight to their and our enemies, the Taliban. If we smash the Taliban we will weaken the hand of those who promote the Taliban and other terrorist groups as proxies.

    Pakistan can't stop the drone strikes. Our friends in Pakistan don't really mind the drone strikes when they accurately hit the Taliban though for appearances they must be seen to protest the drone strikes for Pakistani domestic pride reasons. Our enemies in Pakistan can't stop the drone strikes because their military technology is insufficient to the task.

    The drone strikes are happening because the US President Obama ordered them, for that reason and for no other. Likewise, an escalated bombing campaign could be ordered by the president and done for the same reason.

    I'm not encouraged by the US approach until now which is to pay Pakistan billions of dollars which they have used to fund their nuclear weapons production program. The US has paid for Pakistani nukes, unwittingly. That is not an encouraging approach. It is a very discouraging approach I suggest.

    The money the US has paid Pakistan has been for so-called "help" against terrorism - terrorism which Pakistan helped to establish in the first place.

    If before 9/11, someone had told the Pakistani military that they would receive from the US billions of dollars with which to fund a nuclear weapons program if only they would support a terrorist attack on the US by proxy terrorists, Al Qaeda, under Bin Laden, then the Pakistani military would have (and did) jump at the chance to support a 9/11 attack and so gain billions of US dollars in protection money for assisting against the very terrorist program they helped bring about.

    The previous US approach to Pakistani nuclear weapons has grown the problem not solved it. It has been a self-defeating approach until now.

    Our nukes come in all sizes, both bigger and smaller, lighter, easier to stick on a missile and deliver with accuracy to target. Any enemy considering going to war with the US cares deeply about those weapons and what an excellent deterrence they are because of that care, thankfully!

    I am not promoting chaos. When you win a war you bring chaos to an end. Attacking the Taliban sews chaos in their ranks, not ours. It makes them weaker. It makes them less able to gain access to nukes.

    The reverse is the case. The rational approach from the point of view of soldiers on the ground is to send more troops to Afghanistan, have pitched battles against the enemy Taliban which you can see on the ground, keep fighting until you have suffered so many casualties that you want to go home to lick your wounds. This is the incompetent military approach applied so far. It fails to address the larger chess game of defeating the Taliban in their safe areas and recruiting bases in Pakistan. The drone strikes are the first move in the bigger chess game. Drone strikes are Pawn-to-King-4. Bombing the University of Jihad is Knight-to-King's-Bishop-3.

    The university of jihad para-military indoctrination base changes the minds of peaceful Pakistanis and Afghans and others by brainwashing them into becoming militant Islamists. Attacking those mind-changers with military force stops them changing new minds in the way they have been doing. Similarly ending enemy TV propaganda stops peaceful minds being changed into enemy minds.

    It would be excellent if hiding out in the mountains is all the terrorists could do. They could stay there forever harming no-one.

    As we know, Bin Laden was not hiding in the mountains but in a safe house close to the Pakistani military academy. From there he prepared videos to broadcast to terrorists globally. So it is the protection given to the terrorists by the Pakistani state we must now confront and challenge militarily.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And your scorched earth policy, by dropping huge bombs in populated areas is supposed to reduce the cost of lives lost with this plan of yours?

    Because what you are effectively campaigning for here is war with Pakistan and possibly several other countries, to exert US control and in a round about way, NATO control over allies.

    You don't think that dropping large bombs in urban areas of Pakistan won't be propaganda enough against you?

    By acting as you are claiming the West should act, you will become the enemy's propaganda and its mouth-piece. And thus, you will create more enemies, as non-Taliban Pakistani's will not appreciate foreign forces bombing their country and trying to put in their choice in power. Pakistani's would rightly feel resentful of any foreign force that attempted to subjugate their country to fulfill the political desires of foreign nations.

    If you are assuming that the people here and the Germans back then were simpleton's, sure. That could be believed.

    People will question you because they wish to see you response.

    And yet you are advocating all out war with countries that are allies to the West...

    Are "oil-rich Arab" countries and countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan not a part of "all of humanity" either?

    You still have not said who they have harmed directly...

    The Taliban and Al Qaeda would not be where it was at that time without the West's help.

    While the Taliban may have refused to hand Bin Laden over without evidence that he was guilty, the West has also hosted a range of terrorists in the past and provided sanctuary and help to those who went on to murder people on a large scale. Does that mean the West should lay down it's arms to the countries and people who were murdered by the likes of Saddam Hussein, for example?

    Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and US State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the HRW during the Anfal campaign, the Iraqi government:

    • Massacred 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians including women and children;[12]
    • Destroyed about 4,000 villages (out of 4,655) in Iraqi Kurdistan. Between April 1987 and August 1988, 250 towns and villages were exposed to chemical weapons;[13]
    • Destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches;[14]
    • Wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.[15]

    The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross human rights violations:

    a) mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

    b) the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

    c) the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been "burned", "destroyed", "demolished" and "purified", as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas); Since 1975, some 4,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed by the former Iraqi regime.

    d) Human Rights Watch/Middle East estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were killed.[16] Some Kurdish sources put the number higher, estimating 182,000 Kurds were killed.[17]

    e) Army engineers destroyed the large Kurdish town of Qala Dizeh (population 70,000) and declared its environs a "prohibited area," removing the last significant population center close to the Iranian border.

    Genocide

    Article 2 of the 1949 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines Genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". In December 2005 a court in The Hague ruled that the killing of thousands of Kurds in Iraq in the 1980s was indeed an act of genocide.[18] The Dutch court said that it was considered "legally and convincingly proven that the Kurdish population meets the requirement under the Genocide Conventions as an ethnic group. The court has no other conclusion than that these attacks were committed with the intent to destroy the Kurdish population of Iraq."




    If we were to apply your standards, then the Kurds and survivors would have every right to drop large bombs on Iraq and the US for funding and then protecting Hussein.

    It is unfortunate that you fail to realise that I am questioning your bloodlust and battle cries for all out war with countries that are our allies because small sub-sections existing within these countries are aligned with the enemy. The hypocrisy of your 'I care for all of humanity' claim is particularly astounding as it is galling. Because on the one hand you exhibit quite a bit of bloodlust and call for war, which you even detailed how said war should be waged (using very big bombs and a scorched earth policy), yet on the other hand, you claim you supposedly care for all of humanity...

    After you seize their country and take control of their Government of course and impose your will and your manner of Governance upon them of course..

    It is akin to walking into a room full of strangers and flopping your penis on the table while saying "look at my cock" and then feeling surprised when the people in the room have you arrested for indecent exposure.

    You have benefited from those deals and now that you have taken what you can out of it, you wish to wage war with allies.

    So you think it is more democratic to impose your puppet leaders upon a populace?

    And how do you think the Pakistanis will feel when external Western forces invade their country, bomb said country, impose their political puppets into power? Do you honestly believe that they will consider you to be a "friend"?

    Children to feed, things to do. I will get to it eventually when I have 2 spare hours where I don't have to do anything at all...

    If you invade their country, drop bombs on them, remove their Government and impose your political puppets, they will rise up and want to kill you, which will result in you dropping, well, nukes, since you already used your biggest bombs on them, which yes, will result in genocide.

    If you take such actions, I can assure you, China and Russia will not sit idly by...

    If you destabilise the Government and they find themselves too busy fighting you instead of guarding their nuclear weapons, those very weapons could very well find themselves being used against you, your nearby allies.. At present, the only reason the Taliban haven't gotten their hands on those nuclear weapons is because the Pakistani Government has stopped them from doing so. If you attack and invade Pakistan, those nuclear weapons will either fall into the hands of the Taliban or they will be used against you.

    Then you obviously have not thought your plan through.

    And this thread is about "exterminating" the Taliban. If you invade and bomb Pakistan, then Pashtun's (which include the Taliban) will rise up and it will end up being a Genocide.

    So you wish to attack now just in case in the distant future, they might try and kill you on a genocidal scale?

    You will not win.

    It will never end.

    You should perhaps consider taking up a new hobby. If you are frustrated because you are no longer able to wage war on the local universities, then turning to the net to devise ways of waging war on actual countries may not be the best course of action.

    Try some pottery perhaps....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    No I am not! I never advocated "all out" war. Don't misrepresent me!

    The Pakistani state is not a loyal ally. The state is backstabbing the USA, NATO, the West, double-crossing us, double-dealing us. They pretend to be allies to our faces, but are enemies behind our backs.

    It's not really efficient for me to try to explain the nature of the Pakistani state until after you have watched the 2-hours of video the BBC produced called "SECRET PAKISTAN".

    Well if you are finding it difficult to watch it all in one sitting, you could watch it in smaller clips. Here it is in 2 1-hour videos. I can't spoon feed you the knowledge like you spoon feed your children.

    If you take the time to watch it then I will do my best to fill in anything you still fail to understand but until then I can't waste my time replying to points you are making based on ignorance of this knowledge.

    SECRET PAKISTAN (2 hours)

    DOUBLE-CROSS (1 hour)

    [video=youtube;qSinK-dVrig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig[/video]

    BACK-LASH (1 hour)

    [video=youtube;G5-lSSC9dSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE[/video]
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Make your own argument

    Another half-witted line from another hatemonger.

    I suppose I would go easier on your outlook if it suggested any grasp of the subtleties involved in international diplomacy. True, those subtleties are often part of the problem, but that's also the world we live in. But unless you are wishing for another world war, international diplomacy is somewhat necessary.

    If you cannot express your own argument—

    —relying entirely on others to make the point for you (and only according to your own perspective) there's not much you should expect of other people as far as comprehension goes. You have a perspective; you want people to understand what it is. Explain it. I don't care if you think it inefficient to express your own thoughts. Expressing your own thoughts is what this sort of site is for. Don't fall back to, "Watch this movie and ask me questions after your done."

    You're simply not that credible.

    Hell, I've been here thirteen years, and that isn't enough to warrant the credibility of saying, "Hey, watch this for the next two hours, and then I'll condescend to hold a Q&A for the unenlightened."

    (Do you have any idea how nice it would be for me if I could say, "Watch this, and then you're qualified to ask me questions"?)

    Make your own argument.
     
  20. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Supply Line Warfare

    The requirement to defend military supply lines in war, to expect the enemy to attack and to attempt to cut any long supply lines is a basic part of classical military strategy.

    If there was ever to be a sustained resistance to our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan then any competent military strategist could have predicted that the enemy would wish to attack our supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and if we didn't do the correct thing according to classical military strategy and defend those supply lines then it was inevitable that the enemy would mine and ambush our undefended, or poorly defended, supply lines.

    Now the US does indeed have academic military experts who do indeed know the importance of this requirement in war and have published relevant articles on the internet, such as this fine example -

    but that ancient yet essential military knowledge, that ought to be taught to every officer at every military academy, doesn't seem to be in the brains of the US, British or other NATO generals, who seem to think "patrolling" or "ever bigger MRAPs" is a better plan to try to keep our soldiers safe on otherwise undefended supply routes.

    Actually, the better plan is simply establishing a secure perimeter around your supply route which is watched 24/7 from static guard posts all along the route, either side of the route, and a mobile reaction force to reinforce wherever and whenever the enemy concentrates to attack the supply route.

    I've suggested in this thread a detailed plan to defend supply routes in Afghanistan but no doubt there are many variations on that theme.

    Don't get me wrong, big MRAPs have their uses as a back-up if and when the enemy makes it through the defended perimeter of a supply line but there does clearly need to be a secure perimeter established in the first place otherwise your supply routes remain effectively uncleared territory and anything on the route not protected by tons of armour is simply easy meat for the enemy.

    Certain items in my plan, about seizing satellites and what to bomb in Pakistan is new, specific intelligence for the war on terror and is maybe a bit much to expect on day one from our military. (Everyone here watched the SECRET PAKISTAN video yet?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    oke: )

    But for military leaders not to know the requirement to defend supply routes, and therefore foolishly to lead our soldiers to die from enemy road side bombs and ambushes - this is unforgivable ignorance on the part of our generals, defense secretaries and Pentagon, NATO and UK MOD civilian support military "experts".

    Those in charge don't seem to know the military basics. It's like the donkey-generals who led brave lion-soldiers to their deaths advancing on foot against machine gun nests as in world war 1 - all over again.

    It's another famous military disaster and it is no way to win a war (even though we will likely win this war on terror eventually but at a very high cost in blood and treasure.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Pretty sure it's more complicated than that. It simply isn't possible to watch every major road in Afghanistan all the time. If we spread our forces thin like that, then they can be more easily attacked, which is why we return to our FOBs at night.
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Iran isn't against us. We are against them.
     
  23. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    True. Have you read my post #40 here - 4. Secure supply routes for Afghanistan. Land routes.? That's quite complicated but it's even more complicated than that! (Complicated but practical, affordable, efficient and a good plan to choose.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    Roads like these?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sure it is possible to guard the major roads though to be precise, that which is watched is not so much the road but the secure perimeter around the road.

    Well, there will be check-points and traffic police to stop the enemy simply driving onto the road, so the police will "watch the road" but the difficult threat to counter is the enemy approaching the road from anywhere from the side of the road. So the plan establishes a secure perimeter and the protection force watches that perimeter, to make sure no enemy can cross the perimeter and get anywhere near the road.


    Let me answer that sentence a bit at a time because you have conflated a number of issues that need to be separated out.

    Only 1/3 of the force is spread out on the perimeter defences. 2/3rds of the entire force are available to move to concentrate to reinforce any point on the perimeter which the enemy may choose to attack.

    This plan is for a Nato Auxiliary Supply-route PROtection FORce (NASPROFOR).

    NATO troops form the general staff and sector commands but all the ranks otherwise, from Captain downwards, are local troops, probably mostly Afghans redeployed from the Afghan National Army.

    The perimeter defences are plenty thick enough - the cleared ground, barbed wire and vehicle barrier are about 1500-1600 meters or a mile thick and can include mines as well. Overlooked by the force's machine guns, it's a lethal killing ground that is really too thick to be easily penetrated by the enemy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's easier to defend a fortified position than it is to attack and the attackers don't have much time to attack before the mobile reaction depots can deploy their mobile units to respond to small attacks and for larger attacks the sector command can bring in other assets such as long range artillery and air power.

    The current deployment of Forward Operating Bases far from main supply routes, at remote locations such as along the Afghanistan / Pakistan border, difficult to supply, with routes undefended at night (which presumably is when the enemy lay mines), some requiring air-drops to be supplied, is a very poor way to organise our forces.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now I do not say to our forces out in those remote FOBs - "go out at night".

    I am not presenting a sticking plaster, minor change to the existing standing orders or operating procedures to our forces.

    This plan is for a completely different organisation of ground forces - root and branch, top to bottom. Nothing is the same. So forget "FOBs" as you know them. This plan is different.

    Out lying FOBs far from the main supply routes are to be abandoned in terms of any permanent base.

    Activities at distances from the supply routes are by air power or airborne raids or special forces infiltration. There are to be no more isolated FOBs like tethered goats as bait for the enemy, OK?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The old deployment plan is poor and needs to be chucked out, along with the generals who invented it. :bugeye: My plan is a new broom to sweep out the old and usher in a new era.

    But thank you very much for your questions and points. Since this is all new, I expect that there are many more questions which I have yet to answer but you need to ask them first.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013

Share This Page