Do you think we are losing the battle in AFGHANISTAN?

Question

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=21023
QUOTE "Foreign powers are clearly failing in Afghanistan; they neither won hearts and minds nor contributed to the stability and rebuilding of the country in any meaningful way, says Ramzy Baroud."

I know the British troops place huge importence on winning hearts and minds based on 35 years of TRIED AND TESTED experience in Northern Ireland, but, with so many Allies having thier own agendas, could those be sending out mixed messages resulting in the ultimate goal taking longer to achieve?

Re ssracing
IF you had taken time to READ my question, digest it THEN answer it, having checked out the link I added, YOU WILL KNOW THE WORDS I QUOTED ARE NOT MINE !!!! Duh !

I had hoped that ppl would have given more optomistic answers here to show that person, and the media who chose to write that story that contrary to HIS viewpoint, we ARE doing the direct opposite of what he thinks.

Unfortunately, as usual, ppl just see what they want to and answer whatever THEY want to say instead of reading the question and answering it - as you have so proved !

I KNOW FOR A FACT we are doing good in AFGHANISTAN.

I KNOW that in order for local ppl to benefit from the help we give them we have to destroy the insurgents and Taliban - simple as.

I KNOW that we have helped children by providing playground equipment.. helped local farmers who are willing to change thier crops from poppies to more acceptable crops...

Do you ever see any of this in ANY media...?

C'mon ppl...

Answer 1

Certainly not !!

But pull out and watch what happens to Non-Muslim countries !!!

Answer 2

When the Russians were in Afganistan they built schools, clinics, roads and all kinds of infastructure. Girls were freed from child marriages and were encouraged to attend school. Many kids were taken to Russia for college educations...a first for that many kids from that country. On the downside, they had a political agenda as well that was countered by the Carter Doctrine. But even if we didn't arm the 'mujahideen' there was significant resistance to the Russian occupation.The local people wanted no part of the Russians no matter how much 'good' they did for the local economy and for health and education. They, like the US are 'foreigners' and non-Islamic and they had to go....and they did. Now the US has taken the place of the Russians....building schools, health clinics and all the rest. Now it's our turn to be attacked, for the same reasons the Russians were. We're foreigners and non-Islamic. This is a totally alien and non-western society. None of our rules apply. No matter how long we're there, we're the 'enemy'. The Greeks tried it, the Brits tried it and now the US.....give it up, it's not going to work!

Answer 3

Afghanistan is the most stable and free it has even been. Now does this mean that its out of the woods yet? No way, but seeing Afghanistan is sort of like the 19th century American west with 20th century weapons, the international community will have spend many years creating something stable.

Most of the nation is stable, but two things are still major problems: The 20% of the Taliban that still exists and the opium problem. These are big problems, but they can be solved. Right now the UN/NATO force in Afghanistan is more or less holding the status quo.

Answer 4

Yes, we're going to lose Afghanistan because Iraq has become the main focus of our efforts.

Simply, since bin Laden has not been found, and there appears to be little to no interest in capturing him, al Qa'eda and their Taliban allies have already won a battle for principles. It shows that the Western World is not willing to focus its efforts on crushing the man responsible for founding the most prominent global Jihadist movement.

If we continue to focus on Iraq we're going to miss Afghanistan being undermined by al Qa'eda and the Taliban.

Answer 5

Losing ground in Afghanistan
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/23/opinion/edafghan.php

Things are not going well in Afghanistan, the original front in the war on terrorism.

American and NATO casualties are rising in some of the deadliest fighting since 2001. The Taliban are enjoying a resurgence in presence and power, especially in their traditional southern and eastern strongholds. And with civilian casualties mounting and economic reconstruction in many areas stalled by inadequate security, the American-backed government is in danger of losing the battle for Afghan hearts and minds. If this battle is lost, there can be no lasting military success against the Taliban and their Qaeda allies.

There is still a chance to turn things around. The first step must be enhanced security, so that foreign and local civilians can carry out reconstruction projects. That will require a large and long-term foreign military presence, with a large American component. Unfortunately, Washington is headed in a different direction. With the army overstretched in Iraq and congressional elections coming up, the Pentagon is moving to prematurely reduce already inadequate American troop strength.

The plan is for European and Canadian NATO forces to step in and provide security for civilian teams in southern and eastern Afghanistan while the remaining Americans concentrate on fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This is a new variant of the Bush administration's misbegotten theory that Americans should be war-fighters and leave nation-building to others.

There are two big problems with this. First, in violent situations like that in southern Afghanistan, NATO can assure security only if America, its leading member, provides reconnaissance, transport and combat support. Second, the idea that U.S. troops are there not to bring security to Afghans but to hunt down the Taliban - and too bad if Afghan civilians are caught in the crossfire - is a disastrous approach to counterinsurgency warfare. It has not worked in Iraq and it is not working in Afghanistan.

In the end, international military efforts can only buy time to build an Afghanistan its own people will fight to defend after Western troops leave. In addition to foreign aid, that will require improved performance by the government of President Hamid Karzai, which has been plagued by corruption and hobbled by the alliances it has made with local warlords to extend its authority beyond Kabul.

In particular, the Karzai government has not made much of a dent in Afghanistan's hugely profitable drug trafficking operations. Corruption and governmental feckless are only partly to blame. This is an area in which Afghanistan's multiple problems have begun to feed off one another. A lack of credit and security has left farmers few economic alternatives to opium. Drug revenues feed corruption and make the warlords who run many of the trafficking rings more powerful. They, in turn, use their additional money and influence to recruit more fighters and expand into new areas.

Building a stable Afghanistan that can stand up to the Taliban once Western soldiers leave is going to take many years, many billions of dollars and more foreign troops for longer than most Western governments are now prepared to contemplate. Yet signs of fatigue with the Afghan mission are already beginning to appear in Western capitals, including Washington. These must be resisted.

Washington made the mistake of premature disengagement once before, after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal. That opened the door to the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Sept. 11. If America now means to be serious about combating international terrorism, it cannot make the same mistake twice.

http://www.talkaboutculture.com/group/soc.culture.afghanistan/messages/148102.html

http://www.antiwar.com/afghan/

http://www.afgha.com/?q=node/2370

http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle19594.html

Answer 6

If the tables were reversed, and a foreign government, or governments invaded your country, would you give up the battle, or take to the hills and fight for what you believe in.
We may not agree with what the talaban stand for, however they still have a great deal of support.
Something like the circumstances in Vietnam years ago.
The war is lost!

Answer 7

The troops and the people of Afghanistan think we're winning the hearts and minds. But they don't have access to our politicians and our media, so what do they know?

Answer 8

No. But the ones really winning that war are the Afghans themselves. That Country looks totally different from Iraq because the indigenous people want their new government to work.

Aren't you happy?

Answer 9

I don't know...how do you define a win in a place like that. Is it Bin Lauden arrested or dead? Is it a stable democracy? I have no idea. I feel sorry for the troops because it must be hard to fight an enemy that isn't afraid to die.

Answer 10

Goodness sake, but when did kicking a country in the head for attacking us turn into a peace and love party?

Depends completely on which goals you are referring to.

The goal originally was to destroy the Taliban and destroy Al-Quada. We did most of that quite well.

Where in the world did we sign up to make everyone like us?

I'm tired of this "nation-building" nonsense. Next time, I agree, we need to sale back our goals.

Bomb them into the stone age with three weeks warning, utterly destroying one city out of three publicized targets.

If they attack again, bomb three cities out of nine publicized targets. They'll get tired of evacuating, we'll have given them notice ahead of time.

Save us the trouble, and the only deaths are those stupid enough not to evacuate.

Answer 11

The war in Afgansistan is a total waste of time and lives. When the coalition leave the Taliban will take back over and that will be that.