News Progress in Afghanistan: What's Next After 6 Years of War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan, emphasizing the need for a coherent strategic plan to secure democracy and stability. Significant progress is noted, including economic growth, improved healthcare access, and increased educational enrollment. However, challenges persist, particularly regarding the Taliban's influence and the geopolitical dynamics involving NATO and neighboring countries. The historical context of U.S. involvement, including past support for the mujahedin, is examined, raising questions about the long-term consequences of such actions. Overall, while there are signs of progress, the path to lasting success in Afghanistan remains uncertain.
  • #121
rootX said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8357011.stm
That's some story. His kidnappers seemed to have skipped the injunction in the Quran
against suicide. The Taliban (and Al Qaeda) appears to be little more than a group of megalomaniacs, a cult, using Islam as cover - something worth fighting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
triks said:
opium production went up, that wasn't much but it's the progress that was made by Bush and Co..

So you have:
A trade deficit with China
You want stuff China exports
You don't make anything they want
You have a weak currency and they want paying in silver
Meanwhile you have a possession in the Indian sub-continent that grows opium.

A historical solution does seem to present itself.
 
  • #123
I plotted the US/UK fatalities by month and year below. Let's hope November brings quiet to Afghanistan as it has in past years.
http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

US:
2hq5k4o.jpg


UK:
rj312w.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #124
Something that apparently works in Afghanistan.

National Solidarity Programme

The National Solidarity Programme (NSP) was created in 2003 by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development to develop the ability of Afghan communities to identify, plan, manage and monitor their own development projects. Through the promotion of good local governance, the NSP works to empower rural communities to make decision affecting their own lives and livelihoods. Empowered rural communities collectively contribute to increased human security. The programme is inclusive, supporting entire communities including the poorest and vulnerable people.
http://www.nspafghanistan.org/
 
  • #125
I'm wondering how exactly everyone feels about the current situation in Afghanistan. Actually I'd love to be brought 'more up-to-date' on what's actually going on if anyone has a recent article they could share with me.

I have no idea if these points have been brought up sorry if it has I just skimmed through it.
The way I see it is that it's great that countries are going in and supporting rebuilding the country and supporting the people. However this is an environment that is going to be used against the troops in a war. For instance I recal watching on CNN a story about a base that was near the pakistan border and was ambushed HEAVILY only 2 soldiers survived from the entire base and they were pinned down for quite some time before reinforcements could come and land.

I assume that America's target is mostly to get rid of the terrorist and continue their war on terror however we should look at this area's history. They have been constantly at war and they do really well on home turf :-p I have no doubt in my mind that America given enough strength in Afghanistan could destroy every sign of terrorist in the region and guard it. Will it be worth it to get to that point though?

Maybe we should instead focus more on building the urban areas and helping the people of the country instead of attempting to eliminate the terrorist along the borders? If you look on youtube for videos of battles between Americans on the borderland you will probably be quite shocked by how well the enemy is able to fight. They even do recon missions with the Americans having any idea until they find videotapes.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe we should ease off the border (it's an extremely difficult area to defend) and focus more on the internal system of Afghanistan. Maybe that will be more rewarding? (I.e. Winning over the people of the country so they no longer support or help the terrorist?)

I've enlisted in the military, Canadian, I have to go through all my testings etc. in a little bit and I would love to go over there to know we are helping and making a difference to the Afghan people lives now.

This could all be wrong however as my views are mostly based on reports from just before the summertime, so it's obviously probable that things have changed since then.
 
  • #126
I think we'd need to send about ten times the troops Obama is sending to make a real difference. Granted, it seems politically impossible to do that, and hence I'd prefer we just get out now, as I don't expect the current course of action to accomplish anything notable.
 
  • #127
Sorry! said:
I'm wondering how exactly everyone feels about the current situation in Afghanistan. Actually I'd love to be brought 'more up-to-date' on what's actually going on if anyone has a recent article they could share with me.

I have no idea if these points have been brought up sorry if it has I just skimmed through it.
The way I see it is that it's great that countries are going in and supporting rebuilding the country and supporting the people. However this is an environment that is going to be used against the troops in a war. For instance I recal watching on CNN a story about a base that was near the pakistan border and was ambushed HEAVILY only 2 soldiers survived from the entire base and they were pinned down for quite some time before reinforcements could come and land.

I assume that America's target is mostly to get rid of the terrorist and continue their war on terror however we should look at this area's history. They have been constantly at war and they do really well on home turf :-p I have no doubt in my mind that America given enough strength in Afghanistan could destroy every sign of terrorist in the region and guard it. Will it be worth it to get to that point though?

Maybe we should instead focus more on building the urban areas and helping the people of the country instead of attempting to eliminate the terrorist along the borders? If you look on youtube for videos of battles between Americans on the borderland you will probably be quite shocked by how well the enemy is able to fight. They even do recon missions with the Americans having any idea until they find videotapes.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe we should ease off the border (it's an extremely difficult area to defend) and focus more on the internal system of Afghanistan. Maybe that will be more rewarding? (I.e. Winning over the people of the country so they no longer support or help the terrorist?)

I've enlisted in the military, Canadian, I have to go through all my testings etc. in a little bit and I would love to go over there to know we are helping and making a difference to the Afghan people lives now.

This could all be wrong however as my views are mostly based on reports from just before the summertime, so it's obviously probable that things have changed since then.

One thing I think is a bit silly is the notion that we are going to "break the will" of the enemy. We are not. They will fight to the last man. The only way to get rid of them is to kill all of them and make sure there are no new recruits.
 
  • #128
Galteeth said:
One thing I think is a bit silly is the notion that we are going to "break the will" of the enemy. We are not. They will fight to the last man. The only way to get rid of them is to kill all of them and make sure there are no new recruits.

The common people of Afghanistan are not our enemy. Why should we focus our energy on getting rid of our enemies in the area when:
A)It will require a lot more man-power than currently available.
B)It will require a lot more force than it looks like any country involved is ready to bring to the war.
C)We probably will never succeed in the mission of destroying the enemy even if we try
and
D)We will never win over the regular society of Afghanistan by constantly fighting wars and bringing the violence home to them. SURE there was already violence there but the Taliban, for instance, will go into towns and steal, threaten, beat up people to make sure they do not relay information to the troops... sometimes they even just chill in towns waiting to ambush troops and then just run away normally destroying the village, civillian deaths get involved.
 
  • #129
Sorry! said:
I'm wondering how exactly everyone feels about the current situation in Afghanistan. Actually I'd love to be brought 'more up-to-date' on what's actually going on if anyone has a recent article they could share with me...
See up thread #105, those sources will fill you in quite well.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374114&postcount=105

Sorry said:
I assume that America's target is mostly to get rid of the terrorist and continue their war on terror however we should look at this area's history.
That's the Counter Terrorism strategy, and was rejected by McCrystal for Afghanistan, who did Counter Terror quite well in Iraq. The plan now is Counter Insurgency, a very different concept, which the President has now endorsed (at least for a couple years).
 
Last edited:
  • #130
With regards to the number of troops, and the usual 1:50 COIN rule of thumb:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120274965
Max Boot said:
It's true that the Army/Marine COIN Manual suggests a figure of 1 counterinsurgent per 50 civilians as a rough rule of thumb. It's also true that Afghanistan has roughly 30 million people, so that if you apply that ratio you get a requirement for 600,000 security personnel. That's far more than are currently deployed: There are about 100,000 foreign troops (68,000 of them American) and 180,000 Afghan security personnel.

Getting to 600,000 is daunting but not impossible; Iraq has done it. However the real size of the immediate requirement is smaller because the insurgency is concentrated among the Pashtuns who form half the population, or roughly 15 million people. If you apply the ratio to Pashtuns only, you get a requirement of 300,000 security personnel. That's more in the ballpark of what American and Afghan resources can provide in the near future.
 
  • #131
mheslep said:
See up thread #105, those sources will fill you in quite well.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374114&postcount=105

That's the Counter Terrorism strategy, and was rejected by McCrystal for Afghanistan, who did Counter Terror quite well in Iraq. The plan now is Counter Insurgency, a very different concept, which the President has now endorsed (at least for a couple years).

Thanks.

This counter-insurgency seems much closer to what I would expect to occur in an area such as Afghanistan. I wasn't aware that's currently what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
  • #132
I was particularly interested in this part of the US President's speech this week:

Obama said:
...[Afghanistan and Pakistan are] the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

That is indeed no idle security threat, a serious reminder of why NATO forces are engaged there. I had heard nothing about new extremists entering the country. Anyone have details on the event(s) he is referring to there?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #133
mheslep said:
I was particularly interested in this part of the US President's speech this week:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

That is indeed no idle security threat, a serious reminder of why NATO forces are engaged there. I had heard nothing about new extremists entering the country. Anyone have details on the event(s) he is referring to there?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32916251/
That's the only event I can think about that's been made public at least. However this person is an American citizen who was on a trip IIRC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #134
Sorry! said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32916251/
That's the only event I can think about that's been made public at least. However this person is an American citizen who was on a trip IIRC.

Thanks, I've googled around too

This
Zazi, 24, was born in Afghanistan in 1985, moved to Pakistan at age 7 and emigrated to the United States in 1999
doesn't match up with threats described by Obama.
 
  • #136
  • #137
mheslep said:
Have you read it Rootx? I'd appreciate any comments.

I just heard about it today on the radio.
 
  • #138
Monday Afghan President Karzai hosted Iran's Ahmadinejad in his palace, where he gave his predictably lame stream of attacks on the US. This was done apparently in response to a US snubbing after Karzai torpedoed the election investigation. Karzai now supposedly displays classic fearless leader syndrome:
He believes that America is trying to dominate the region, and that he is the only one who can stand up to them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30karzai.html?ref=asia

Usually my opinion would be tough luck for the US and allies, as the Afghan people are the only ones who have the right to choose their leadership. But this time the Afghans didn't choose Karzai; this former Maitre D in a Baltimore restaurant stole the election. Obama / McCrystal should throw the bastard on (or under) the next passing train, and hold a real election.
 
  • #140
Wouldn't it be best to get the *bleep* out of Afghanistan, the sooner the better?
All these years and all that waste of money and life - and achieving funk-all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING!
 
  • #141
Max Faust said:
Wouldn't it be best to get the *bleep* out of Afghanistan, the sooner the better?
All these years and all that waste of money and life - and achieving funk-all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING!

Errr, sources?
 
  • #142
Max Faust said:
Wouldn't it be best to get the *bleep* out of Afghanistan, the sooner the better?
All these years and all that waste of money and life - and achieving funk-all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING!

Oh wow. April fools?

Perhaps you haven't read about the progress in Marjah, or the 50+ top Taliban leaders captured in the past 2 months. We are finally getting the push we need, and I believe Kandahar is next
 
  • #143
Getting to 600,000 is daunting but not impossible; Iraq has done it. However the real size of the immediate requirement is smaller because the insurgency is concentrated among the Pashtuns who form half the population, or roughly 15 million people. If you apply the ratio to Pashtuns only, you get a requirement of 300,000 security personnel. That's more in the ballpark of what American and Afghan resources can provide in the near future.
So have a security force consisting of the ruling tribe 'A' large enough to overwhelm the civilians of tribe 'B' who you assume are all suspected terrorists.

Then resolve to get tough and crush the terrorists and all the other things you promise before elections - worked out well everywhere else it's been done.
 
  • #144
MotoH said:
the progress in Marjah, or the 50+ top Taliban leaders captured

We must have quite different standards for what constitutes a military achievement then.
You can spend five hundred frakkin' years in Afghanistan and still achieve nothing. Sure, you can blow up some houses and kill some rugged goat-herders here and there but the only real change that has happened in Afghanistan since 2001 is that they are now the world's number one heroin manufacturer again. Good job!
 
  • #145
Max Faust said:
the only real change that has happened in Afghanistan since 2001 is that they are now the world's number one heroin manufacturer again. Good job!
But most of the people it kills are Russians so we win.
At the moment 85% of Afghanistan's heroin is exported to Iran, the only thing stopping most of it reaching europe is that Iran has a somewhat zealous attitude to stopping drug smugglers.
Odd that they want to play at being a nuclear power when if they want to kill 1000s of westerners a year all they have to do is to cut their anti-smuggling program.

No doubt once we get around to to democratizilating Iran (watch for around $150/barrel) that interruption to international trade will be removed.
 
  • #146
mgb_phys said:
85% of Afghanistan's heroin is exported to Iran

Speaking of Iran, has it passed completely under the radar that Hamid Karzai recently had a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad where they discussed future relations with regards to the project of rebuilding Afghanistan? It's REALLY REALLY hard to see who else but Iran that stands to gain from the Bush wars. (Considering that the political majority of the Iraqi people are Iran-friendly shi'ites.) So yes, that sure was a well-spent trillion dollars.
 
  • #147
It's all good, the U.S. gets it's share of the worlds prescription heroine.

"Of all countries, the United States had the highest total consumption of oxycodone in 2007 (82% of the world total of 51.6 tons)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone#Clinical_use

That ought to be enough for us to get our fix.
 
  • #149
Max Faust said:
Wouldn't it be best to get the *bleep* out of Afghanistan, the sooner the better?
All these years and all that waste of money and life - and achieving funk-all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING!
Please don't derail this two year old thread..
 
Last edited:
  • #150
mgb_phys said:
So have a security force consisting of the ruling tribe 'A' large enough to overwhelm the civilians of tribe 'B' who you assume are all suspected terrorists.

Then resolve to get tough and crush the terrorists and all the other things you promise before elections - worked out well everywhere else it's been done.
Visibly counter-insurgency worked in Iraq. You know this. Why the counter factual sarcasm?
 

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Article : The Shadow War : Euro vs. Dollar
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News Bravo Europe Union, Shame on you France, Damn the Chinese are smooth
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Is a Major Overhaul of the US Government Possible? Feedback Wanted!
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K