Who are the Taliban?

Hi FreeAsia

Yes you have rather better articulated my thinking and provided some further information, of which I must confess I was largely ignorant (the spread of the Pashtuns)

Hence my rather deep reservations about the UK becoming embroiled in such an adventure under the convenient, catch all, of "War against Terror".

NATO forces getting killed? I believe over 500 Taliban rebels have been killed so far. The US SOFs are doing a fine job up there. Afghanistan is a very good lesson for anyone who wants to look at how effective SOFs are. It took a couple of thousand of them combined with Northern Alliance forces and backed by air power to take down the Taliban. And right now they're kicking a lot of @$$!

DPRKUnderground said:

NATO forces getting killed? I believe over 500 Taliban rebels have been killed so far. The US SOFs are doing a fine job up there. Afghanistan is a very good lesson for anyone who wants to look at how effective SOFs are. It took a couple of thousand of them combined with Northern Alliance forces and backed by air power to take down the Taliban. And right now they're kicking a lot of @$$!

Click to expand...

Not really... NATO infact is having very hard time managing things in Afghanistan. The insurgency and attacks are at same level as Iraq if not more but targets are more military oriented rather than civilians as is the case in Iraq.

The idea that allied forces are "kicking a lot of ass" is wishful thinking, they are not.

Some related news stories:

September 12th, 2006, 12:49

Land Forces
The recent tenacity demonstrated by Afghan insurgents in southern Afghanistan reflects their attempt to test NATO’s resolve, but that opposition will be quelled, says the alliance’s supreme commander in Europe, US Marine Corps General James Jones.

September 11th, 2006, 12:50

Strategic Defence and Security
NATO forces in southern Afghanistan are not in dire need of reinforcements, but the international community needs to fulfill its commitment of military forces to ensure the ground commander has enough flexibility to quell the rise in violence in the region

September 11th, 2006, 12:33

Strategic Defence and Security
Five years after al-Qaida assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the charismatic Afghan mujahedin leader who fought the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's organization, the Islamist insurgency has crept out of the rugged Afghan mountains, making its way into Kabul.

September 11th, 2006, 12:31

Strategic Defence and Security
An officer has resigned from the British army in protest at its "grotesquely clumsy" campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, a newspaper reported Sunday.

September 8th, 2006, 01:11

Strategic Defence and Security
British forces in Afghanistan are attacked up to a dozen times a day and are involved in "extraordinarily intense" fighting in the country, the senior British commander there said on Thursday.

September 8th, 2006, 01:03

Strategic Defence and Security
Almost a week into its biggest offensive against the Taliban, NATO says it has cornered a large group of fighters and killed about 300, but still needs more troops and aircraft to finish the job.

September 8th, 2006, 12:49

Strategic Defence and Security
NATO's military commander has called for allied nations to provide more troops to combat a surprisingly strong insurgency in the south of conflict-scarred Afghanistan.

September 7th, 2006, 02:06

Strategic Defence and Security
Pakistan, criticized by some Afghan leaders over cross-border infiltration by the Taliban, vowed on Sept. 6 to help its neighbor fight terrorism as Afghanistan battles its worst violence in five years

September 5th, 2006, 12:32

Strategic Defence and Security
Britain's new army chief warned Monday that the country's military forces are stretched to the very limit, as three soldiers died in a grim day for Britons on the frontline in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are many other stories where the above came from which show that NATO and allied forces are having tough time in Afghanistan, as any invader did in the past.

SampanViking said:

Hi FreeAsia

Yes you have rather better articulated my thinking and provided some further information, of which I must confess I was largely ignorant (the spread of the Pashtuns)

Hence my rather deep reservations about the UK becoming embroiled in such an adventure under the convenient, catch all, of "War against Terror".

Click to expand...

It's been rather strange watching this whole campaign unfold i'm assuming
that Blair read his Kipling but he learnt all the wrong lessons

Also he knows that the rest of the world has become a smaller place in the
last 60 years why did he assume the Pashtuns/Pathans would be different ?

One of the consequences of the Soviet-Afghan war was that more and more
people from India and Pakistan became aware that they had some Pashtun ancestors.

There are 4 parties who share the blame in this matter:-

1. The Saudi's who refused to take Ossama when the Talib-ilm asked
for him to be tried by a Islamic court for the crimes they accused him of.

2. The Talib-ilm who were checkmated by Osama

3. The Americans who preferred to issue threats rather than back-door
diplomacy to try Osama

4. and of course Osama who violated the duties of a guest

It's a mixture of cowardice, stupidity, arrogance and shamelessness

Soldiers deployed in Helmand province five years on from the US-led invasion, and six months after the deployment of a large British force, have told The Independent that the sheer ferocity of the fighting in the Sangin valley, and privations faced by the troops, are far worse than generally known.

"We are flattening places we have already flattened, but the attacks have kept coming. We have killed them by the dozens, but more keep coming, either locally or from across the border," one said. "We have used B1 bombers, Harriers, F16s and Mirage 2000s. We have dropped 500lb, 1,000lb and even 2,000lb bombs. At one point our Apaches [helicopter gunships] ran out of missiles they have fired so many. Almost any movement on the ground gets ambushed. We need an entire battle group to move things. Yet they will not give us the helicopters we have been asking for.

He continued: "We did not expect the ferocity of the engagements. We also expected the Taliban to carry out hit and run raids. Instead we have often been fighting toe to toe, endless close-quarters combat. It has been exhausting. I remember when we had to extract a Danish recce group which was getting attacked on all sides; it was bedlam. We have greater firepower, so we tend to win, but, of course, they can take their losses while our casualties will invariably lead to concern back home.You also have to think that each time we kill one, how many more enemies we are creating. And, of course, the lack of security means hardly any reconstruction is taking place now, so we are not exactly winning hearts and minds."

Click to expand...

SampanViking said:

Something quite strange is happening in Afghanistan. Nato troops (largely British) are fighting a major offensive in many parts of the country and taking heavy casualties.

Click to expand...

Heavy casualties? You have to be joking! Casualties are occuring, but they are tiny compared to the sort of numbers that have occured in past conflicts. It is rather unlikely that the mission will fail militarily (in as far that the Taleban will drive Nato out of Afghanistan). The danger is cowardly politicians withdrawing their troops because of public hysteria. Fortunately that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment.

Recently it appears that the Nato force has managed to dislodge the Taleban from one of their strongholds in the south. How far they will be able to follow up on this I don't know. But the fact they are taking the fight to the enemy (rather than hiding in their camps) is positive.

The other weekend I recall that Brisitsh Casulaties were Twenty Dead or more with dozens of others injured. By UK standards these days, thats heavy casualties.

SampanViking said:

The other weekend I recall that Brisitsh Casulaties were Twenty Dead or more with dozens of others injured. By UK standards these days, thats heavy casualties.

Click to expand...

Maybe amongst weak-kneed panzies that is "heavy casualties", but amongst anyone with a sense of proportion that is anything but. Besides, even the public at large generally seems fairly adjusted to the losses. Complaints concern deaths related due to inadequate equipment, more than the actual numbers of dead.

amongst anyone with a sense of proportion that is anything but

Click to expand...

I never knew you were so callous and ruthless You are really the Evil Fu Man Chu

Maybe amongst weak-kneed panzies that is "heavy casualties

Click to expand...

Well you will have to pardon me as I have my gentleman Hairdresser and Ballet Dancer friends to entertain

SampanViking said:

I never knew you were so callous and ruthless

Click to expand...

Soldiers join the Army prepared to die if necessary. They want to live, but they accept that their profession is the most dangerous one out there. I salute their courage in going on patrol and into firefights in full knowledge of what might happen to them. Provided they are given the right tools to do their job and led properly, I rather have to accept the choices they make in how they want to live their lives.

When our troops are sent into hostile combat zones for long periods of time, it is inevitable some will die. Every death is a shame, but I am surprised casualties have not been higher thus far in Afghanistan. At this point it would dishonour the memories of the dead to not continue with the campaign, for their sacrifices would have been for nothing. They would prefer that the Afghanis are helped to rebuild their country, rather than left to the wolves.

Police officers are killed while on duty in the UK every year. Does that mean we shouldn't send them into "violent" areas? If all they did was drive around sunny suburbia they'd be fine. Of course the people in those abandoned places would have a problem with increased crime. But, hey, at least we wouldn't see anymore policemen in bodybags.....

(And in case you complain you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have made such a silly comment in the first place.)

Well you will have to pardon me as I have my gentleman Hairdresser and Ballet Dancer friends to entertain

Click to expand...

Sampan, do you support British troops being in Afghanistan and performing combat duties?

If the answer is "no" then how many troops are dying won't change your attitude as to the fact they shouldn't be there.

If the answer is "yes" then you have to expect some to die in performing their duty (not to be confused with dying because Tony Blair is a cheap arse and won't fund the military properly when he sends them off on his legacy-making campaigns).

FuManChu, the problem is that the Taliban aren't the true enemy of the West. Al Qaeda is the real enemy. In order to defeat Al Qaeda, there must be changes in foreign policy. The Taliban just want their country back and right now, support for the Taliban is growing daily. Eventually, the entire country will revolt (including the major cities). Then what? What will NATO be able to do when that happens? Fighting the Taliban means not fighting the real enemy which is Al Qaeda. Not fighting Al Qaeda means that Al Qaeda is being allowed to give a huge breathing space and THAT right there means the West is losing the war on terror.