War in Afghanistan - can it be won?

[-:Undertaker:-]

The conflict in Afghanistan and now Northern Pakistan started in 2001 as a reply to the attacks of 9/11 on the United States. NATO currently has around 65,000 troops in Afghanistan and the terrorists are largely unknown, but is estimated to be well under 500,000. The question is, even with a troop surge, can this war be won?

I personally think not, as the British Empire failed, and later on the Soviet Union also failed with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. I think Afghanisatan is basically ungovernable and our efforts should be focused on Pakistan which has faced a lot of trouble since Pervez Musharraf was outsted from office, and now terrorists control large chunks of the nuclear armed nation.

Do you think Afghanistan is winnable?

Moved by Jamesy (Forum Moderators): From "Current Affairs"

[Ardemax]

not as of yet.

i agree with what you're saying, i said it before also, soviets went there like 10 years earlier, failed, lost thousands of troops, but suddenly some big heads think we can win.

if we use the american drone things, then we have a good chance.

[Jamesy]

it's a bit of a catch 22. Leave Afghanistan and they surge into nuclear armed pakistan, or you end up fighting to the bitter end over many years with increasing lack of public support.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The only way you could beat them would be to fight exactly as they do, which will never happen and I very much doubt could happen. It does appear to be the new Vietnam.

[Ardemax]

The only way you could beat them would be to fight exactly as they do, which will never happen and I very much doubt could happen. It does appear to be the new Vietnam.


pick up a tea towel. put it on head. make a bomb in a coke can. shout something. throw it. go hide in a cave. thrive.


doesnt sound that hard tbh..

[Nixt]

if we use the american drone things, then we have a good chance.

I assume you mean UAVs? The British Army have those too and I don't see how they give us such an amazing chance of winning this war. Yes, they give us an advantage but they are merely a small part of the wide variety of kit the coalition have access too :P.


It does appear to be the new Vietnam.

I can see how you would make this association however I do think it is just a little exaggeration. Just as one example, the casualties in Afghanistan (for the whole coalition, private contractors and the Afghan security force) currently stands at 6,782. The death toll in Vietnam exceeded one million. Additionally the tactics employed by soldiers in the Vietnam war is massively different to how they behave in the Afghan war. The one similarity is the tactics employed by the Vietcong and the Taliban however.


pick up a tea towel. put it on head. make a bomb in a coke can. shout something. throw it. go hide in a cave. thrive.


What an incredibly stereotypical and misguided view of Al Qaeda / the Taliban... There is a lot more to their organisation than that.

As for the war in Afghanistan, it is certainly a conflict we can win providing our troops are provided with the appropriate equipment and kit as well as having the amount of troops they need.

[Special]

I personally think not, it would have been won by now. But a teacher at school told me if we backed out, the far east (china etc) may attack us.

But no, i dont think it can be won

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can see how you would make this association however I do think it is just a little exaggeration. Just as one example, the casualties in Afghanistan (for the whole coalition, private contractors and the Afghan security force) currently stands at 6,782. The death toll in Vietnam exceeded one million. Additionally the tactics employed by soldiers in the Vietnam war is massively different to how they behave in the Afghan war. The one similarity is the tactics employed by the Vietcong and the Taliban however.

I have said before in other debates, something does not have to be black and white to be compared to something else (EU & USSR) because hardly anything is ever the same. If Afghanistan troop numbers gradually increase as they did in Vietnam, then we do face a Vietnam-style war which in the end, we will lose. On the point of China in the post above, China has nothing to do with Afghanistan, while I think China is the biggest threat to the world by saying China would attack us if we withdrew from Afghanistan is jusr scare-mongering.

[Jordy]

I personally think not, it would have been won by now. But a teacher at school told me if we backed out, the far east (china etc) may attack us.

But no, i dont think it can be wonWhat lol? Never heard that before


As for the war in Afghanistan, it is certainly a conflict we can win providing our troops are provided with the appropriate equipment and kit as well as having the amount of troops they need.Although there is the obvious need for better equipment, that will not win us the war. The Americans have decent equipment and all it means is less deaths (Obviously it's a price worth paying to have the equipment, my point is though it won't win us the war).

What is needed is a greater effort from NATO as a whole, the Americans, British, Canadians, Dutch, Danish and Australians seem to be doing it all. Germany are just pissing around in far safer areas such as Kabul, it's a complete waste. Another example is how last week it came out that the Italians had been paying the Taliban not to attack them. With some troop surges and decent help from the likes of France, Germany, Spain and Italy I believe that could make quite a difference. And most importantly, collaboration with Pakistan. NATO and Pakistan both have similar motives and hate the Taliban, if the Pakistani Government would willingly let NATO Forces into Northern Pakistan it would certainly help the war. Whatever it takes, bribing the pakistani's with money, oil or military equipment, it'd be worth it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What lol? Never heard that before

Although there is the obvious need for better equipment, that will not win us the war. The Americans have decent equipment and all it means is less deaths (Obviously it's a price worth paying to have the equipment, my point is though it won't win us the war).

What is needed is a greater effort from NATO as a whole, the Americans, British, Canadians, Dutch, Danish and Australians seem to be doing it all. Germany are just pissing around in far safer areas such as Kabul, it's a complete waste. Another example is how last week it came out that the Italians had been paying the Taliban not to attack them. With some troop surges and decent help from the likes of France, Germany, Spain and Italy I believe that could make quite a difference. And most importantly, collaboration with Pakistan. NATO and Pakistan both have similar motives and hate the Taliban, if the Pakistani Government would willingly let NATO Forces into Northern Pakistan it would certainly help the war. Whatever it takes, bribing the pakistani's with money, oil or military equipment, it'd be worth it.

The problem being the United States doesn't have any money, we don't either (well we do but we'd rather waste it on foreign aid, EU, China, India and all the rest of it).

[Nixt]

I have said before in other debates, something does not have to be black and white to be compared to something else (EU & USSR) because hardly anything is ever the same. If Afghanistan troop numbers gradually increase as they did in Vietnam, then we do face a Vietnam-style war which in the end, we will lose. On the point of China in the post above, China has nothing to do with Afghanistan, while I think China is the biggest threat to the world by saying China would attack us if we withdrew from Afghanistan is jusr scare-mongering.

Things don't have to be black and white, I agree. However there does have to be some similarity - in this case I do not think there is. The only similarity is the guerilla warfare; but that is how all wars are going to be fought in this day and age (until we move on to Robots *puts on tin foil hat*). The possibility of it becoming similar in the future does not justify comparing it now. Effectively war (or peacekeeping) is never a clear cut 'win' or 'lose' situation. In Afghanistan, the ISAF and OEF have objectives or aims that they must work toward. They ever achieve these aims or do not and they have already completed some. We might be destined to fail when it comes to some objectives, but in terms of protection international interest we have achieved quite a lot. This is certainly not a war that can be won overnight and it would be wrong to suggest that we should be seeing massive progress already. Just because we aren't seeing every Afghan fall to their knees and cry out for democracy, does not mean we aren't making progress.

The current objectives in Afghanistan can be completed in the event that things are planned strategically and they are carried out effectively, most important with the required amount of troops and the proper kit. With the backing of both the UN and NATO, we are in a far better position in Afghanistan than we were with Iraq and indeed how the Americans were in Vietnam.

Remember also, that there is a lot of focus on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan so we aren't totally ignoring Pakistan at all. There are things going on behind the scenes all over Afghanistan and especially on that border.


What lol? Never heard that before

Although there is the obvious need for better equipment, that will not win us the war. The Americans have decent equipment and all it means is less deaths (Obviously it's a price worth paying to have the equipment, my point is though it won't win us the war).


Admittedly that isn't the only contributing factor but it would be a great help. Americans have some good kit, but there are two issues. Firstly they don't use it effectively and secondly most of it is so Gucci it doesn't actually do any real good at all (from the things I have heard from soldiers whilst I was in the army).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Things don't have to be black and white, I agree. However there does have to be some similarity - in this case I do not think there is. The only similarity is the guerilla warfare; but that is how all wars are going to be fought in this day and age (until we move on to Robots *puts on tin foil hat*). The possibility of it becoming similar in the future does not justify comparing it now. Effectively war (or peacekeeping) is never a clear cut 'win' or 'lose' situation. In Afghanistan, the ISAF and OEF have objectives or aims that they must work toward. They ever achieve these aims or do not and they have already completed some. We might be destined to fail when it comes to some objectives, but in terms of protection international interest we have achieved quite a lot. This is certainly not a war that can be won overnight and it would be wrong to suggest that we should be seeing massive progress already. Just because we aren't seeing every Afghan fall to their knees and cry out for democracy, does not mean we aren't making progress.

The current objectives in Afghanistan can be completed in the event that things are planned strategically and they are carried out effectively, most important with the required amount of troops and the proper kit. With the backing of both the UN and NATO, we are in a far better position in Afghanistan than we were with Iraq and indeed how the Americans were in Vietnam.

Remember also, that there is a lot of focus on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan so we aren't totally ignoring Pakistan at all. There are things going on behind the scenes all over Afghanistan and especially on that border.

Admittedly that isn't the only contributing factor but it would be a great help. Americans have some good kit, but there are two issues. Firstly they don't use it effectively and secondly most of it is so Gucci it doesn't actually do any real good at all (from the things I have heard from soldiers whilst I was in the army).

The United Nations being in support does not help at all, we face a mountain as big as Vietnam with a fraction of the numbers of troops there, and remember this time the Taliban are fighting us with our own weapons whereas when they were fighting the Red Army they had to make do with (at the start) small numbers of modenr equipment. We are obviously not going to change to guerilla tactics so the war is already lost. We could put a million troops in and it wouldn't make any difference at all.

In Vietnam the United States were facing the Vietcong with modern western armour whereas the Vietcong only had USSR/PROC weaponary which was as bad as the cars they made.

[Nixt]

The United Nations being in support does not help at all, we face a mountain as big as Vietnam with a fraction of the numbers of troops there, and remember this time the Taliban are fighting us with our own weapons whereas when they were fighting the Red Army they had to make do with (at the start) small numbers of modenr equipment. We are obviously not going to change to guerilla tactics so the war is already lost. We could put a million troops in and it wouldn't make any difference at all.

In Vietnam the United States were facing the Vietcong with modern western armour whereas the Vietcong only had USSR/PROC weaponary which was as bad as the cars they made.

UN support means we effectively have the support of several nations and NATO. Unlike Iraq, where it was a relatively small coalition which does give us an advantage from the off. It is however, as Jordy said, important that all nations make an equal or positive contribution rather than pissing about in the safe zone making out they're doing *something* when in fact they're really doing nothing. With combined force of the ISAF and appropriate tactics, we will be successful in Afghanistan.

Yes they are using far more sophisticated weaponry, but they're ability to use this weaponry is relatively limited. IEDs are, at best, primitive and this is generally their key weapon.

[-:Undertaker:-]

UN support means we effectively have the support of several nations and NATO. Unlike Iraq, where it was a relatively small coalition which does give us an advantage from the off. It is however, as Jordy said, important that all nations make an equal or positive contribution rather than pissing about in the safe zone making out they're doing *something* when in fact they're really doing nothing. With combined force of the ISAF and appropriate tactics, we will be successful in Afghanistan.

Yes they are using far more sophisticated weaponry, but they're ability to use this weaponry is relatively limited. IEDs are, at best, primitive and this is generally their key weapon.

The British Empire (one of the best and strongest powers the world had ever seen) failed in Afghanistan but managed to settle in India, Africa and vast swathes of land, but failed in Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union (the rival to the United States with vast resources and a overinflated military budget) failed in Afghanistan, yet managed to defeat the Third Reich from the eastern side but failed in Afghanistan.

I really cannot see what makes us in a better position this time, if not we are worse off than the last two attempts by major world powers to win in Afghanistan.

[Ardemax]

thnx for the -rep undetaker/pabble (one of u!! lol)

[Grig]

Ah, there needs to be a radical strategy shift if it was to be won. Iraq is proving to be sucessful. However, Afrghanistan is a whole different country, it has been flooded by militants and terrorists for decades, and it is close to impossible to find them, sure you can drive them further into hiding. But at the end of the day they re-group and become as strong as before. Furthemore, there needs to be more action in Pakistan and militants are hiding there and really nothing much is done, that is their safe haven. The focus needs to be actually fighting the militants first and foremost in my view rather than being stationed in the cities.

[-:Undertaker:-]

thnx for the -rep undetaker/pabble (one of u!! lol)

I never -rep and if I did on a rare occassion, I would say so.


Ah, there needs to be a radical strategy shift if it was to be won. Iraq is proving to be sucessful. However, Afrghanistan is a whole different country, it has been flooded by militants and terrorists for decades, and it is close to impossible to find them, sure you can drive them further into hiding. But at the end of the day they re-group and become as strong as before. Furthemore, there needs to be more action in Pakistan and militants are hiding there and really nothing much is done, that is their safe haven. The focus needs to be actually fighting the militants first and foremost in my view rather than being stationed in the cities.

Iraq is successful now (although was still better off before we went in), but I can see in the future a far more worse and unstable dictatorship taking hold again, most likely Shia muslim.

[xxMATTGxx]

I know one way that would make us win the war. But sadly it will kill innocent people and god knows what else it may do to the world. It can be won it will just take time, more troops, more equipment and more money.

[GommeInc]

Personally, no. There will always be some sort of conflict and the idea of "killing all off these problems" seem like it will land the countries involved in more trouble, with things like war crimes and other countries butting in for something unneeded. New equipment would be useful, but as Jordy said, it just means less people killed - people will still be killed with the new equipment. It's kinda like the example of the Three Little Pigs story, except the wolf now has a rocket launcher and bombs at his disposal :P It will take years to fix this mess, and possibly win this war, even though it seems like conflict makes up the back bone of Afghanistan :/

[Catchy]

send the troops home :(

[Ardemax]

I know one way that would make us win the war. But sadly it will kill innocent people and god knows what else it may do to the world. It can be won it will just take time, more troops, more equipment and more money.

nukenukenukenukenukenukenukenukenuke.

[x-glow]

Tbh, it will not end, I mean think about it, all the people atm Joining the army, Alot of them will be going into afghan soon, I know my dads m8's son is.

[Captainace$]

Its all guesswork if you ask me, Afghanistan are getting more soilders and so are we. So until one or the other are forced to give up then no, I don't think it can be won.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The government in Kabul is corrupt anyway, we're just as bad now as the Soviet Union and other nations were. No regard for democracy and no decency what so ever. I have to hand it to China, at least they don't pretend to be a democracy and they don't go invading countrys replacing one crackpot regime with another crackpot regime (not yet anyway).

[BlueTango]

Of course we can and will win it. Whether it's through strategy and skill, or a long process of attrition, we will win eventually.

[Bun]

it was always going to be a slow but gruelling process. hate to say it but it's still needed.