Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.

[Don Roley]

The Taliban have not ability to strike at the United States. Zip Nada Zero.

You might have tried to make this argument September 10th, 2001. But then 19 guys with box cutters proved to the world that they could.

Jeff has dealt with a lot of the points I would have. The Taliban was a partner with the guys that killed thousands of Americans. They have not changed their outlook. If you believe so, please post some sort of counter to the words of their leader I have posted. They are still partners as far as we know and it is reasonable to assume that they still work together for their mutual benefitand goals. If there were proof to the latter, I would like to see it.

The government of Afghanistan is asking for our help to defeat them. It is in our interests to do so. I assume you would have us just sit back and let the Taliban defeat the government of Karzai and come back into power.

I also would think that your do not believe that the Iraq war is a drain on the hunt for the real terrorists. I do not know if you have made that claim in the past, but I am reasonably sure that when others have said so you have not countered them. I think this thread has helped illustrate your belief that we should turn the military operations totally over to the locals and leave the hunt for Osama to the nations that he is in.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

In a lesser way they still are providing protection for AQ, even if that is not there intention. They are providing a screening force. It's hard to conduct searches for AQ members when there is an armed force in the way.

As far as the difference between a combat operation and an assassination, it basically comes down to this. Is the person a combatant? Is the person supplying direct or indirect support to the forces that are confronting you? Even if the person is a politico, if he is involved with that groups forces, such as funding, supply, or in a direct role with it, he is a combat target. Taking out leadership is a tried and true way of lessening the effectiveness of opposing forces.

Whether or not our security role there is done is hard to say. Personally, I think we should keep it up for a couple of reasons. For one, it puts our personel in the areas the Afgahni army probably wouldn't have the ablility to cover, thus keeping the influence of the Taliban possibly AQ out of those regions. Secondly, I feel that our responsibility goes a bit further than you seem too. Let us break the ability of the Taliban to field a threatening force before we leave.

Jeff

So true, and I think some on the Left are forgetting that the Taliban (our enemies in Afghanistan) supported and sheltered Al-Quaeda (and continues to do so). Given the fact that AQ launched the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the Taliban's support constituted (and still does) and ACT OF WAR. Period. Comparisons between the Iraq War justifications and the Afghan War are false, IMO. What American, IMO, COULDN'T support military action against AQ and their Taliban supporters?

As to Zarqawi? He's one of those fiends from Hell who purposely fomented Civil War conditions within Iraq in pursuit of his own evil ends. No, I wasn't for the Iraq War (no surprise to those who've read my Study posts on the subject), but I think that, as the expression goes... "His soul was required in Hell" - and that is where he now is, IMO.

 

[michaeledward]

You might have tried to make this argument September 10th, 2001. But then 19 guys with box cutters proved to the world that they could.

And, the next time a terrorist attack strikes, there will be little in the way of military force that can stop it. Terrorist attacks are 'sucker punches', and can not be defended against with brute force. Other tools are required.

Jeff has dealt with a lot of the points I would have. The Taliban was a partner with the guys that killed thousands of Americans. They have not changed their outlook. If you believe so, please post some sort of counter to the words of their leader I have posted. They are still partners as far as we know and it is reasonable to assume that they still work together for their mutual benefitand goals. If there were proof to the latter, I would like to see it.

Whether their 'outloook' has changed or not, the capacity to act on their outlook has been significantly reduced. I believe at this time it has been reduced to the point where the cost benefit analysis indicates we should stop.

The government of Afghanistan is asking for our help to defeat them. It is in our interests to do so. I assume you would have us just sit back and let the Taliban defeat the government of Karzai and come back into power.

So, The United States set up an ineffectual government in Afghanistan, after we invaded and removed the old, government (which apparently was effective for the governed). Now that government, which we installed, is dependent upon our military to keep the peace. How convenient for us.

Does not this define the very essence of a puppet regime?

I also would think that your do not believe that the Iraq war is a drain on the hunt for the real terrorists. I do not know if you have made that claim in the past, but I am reasonably sure that when others have said so you have not countered them. I think this thread has helped illustrate your belief that we should turn the military operations totally over to the locals and leave the hunt for Osama to the nations that he is in.

Well, I do think it was very good that our military was able to go into Iraq and find and elminate all those Weapons of Mass Destruction. We knew they were located around Baghdad, to the East, and South, and North and West of the city. We also did a wonderful thing by stopping all the torture that was carried about by Uday and Qusay in the Iraqi prisions. And how we brougth peaceful co-existance to different religious sects that occupy Iraq. As I recall, they had been fighting each other for thirteen or fourteen hundred years. And we were able to stop all that. And what a great accomplishment, to have Parlimentary elections in Iraq, with victors such as Muqtada al Sadr, now holding critical seats in the Iraqi Parliment. Without al Sadr, and the support he receives in Sadr City (named for his father), Prime Minister Maliki would not be able to authorize the Iraqi military to set up the checkpoints required for President Bush's Surge. I suppose, it's nice that we have driven bin Laden and his closest friends out of the safe houses that President Hussein provided them in Iraq. And Lastly, although I am opposed to the death penalty, watching a young democracy take up the issue of capital punishment with appropriate somberness while executing the former leader was almost an inspiration.


Oh, damn ... it wasn't the United States military that did any of those things, was it? Best intentions, though, right?

 

[michaeledward]

In a lesser way they still are providing protection for AQ, even if that is not there intention. They are providing a screening force. It's hard to conduct searches for AQ members when there is an armed force in the way.

Jeff, I would love to learn more about what you propose here.

To suggest that the Taliban is a 'screening force' suggests that they are an organized beyond any measure I have heard about.

Or do you mean they behave as the mosquitoes; irritating enough to slow us down to scratch? And because we are scratching, we can't be looking for al Qaeda. If that is the case, can't the commanders just ignore the itch?

Are the Taliban, as they are today, are an 'armed force'? Or are they just a bunch of thugs with guns and jeeps. Is there a command structure? Is there a communication structure? Are their military bases? Is their organized actions among geographically disparate groups?

I don't believe the Taliban are guerillas similiar to what is fighting in Iraq today ... they can't just slip away and disappear into the local population.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Jeff, I would love to learn more about what you propose here.

To suggest that the Taliban is a 'screening force' suggests that they are an organized beyond any measure I have heard about.

Or do you mean they behave as the mosquitoes; irritating enough to slow us down to scratch? And because we are scratching, we can't be looking for al Qaeda. If that is the case, can't the commanders just ignore the itch?

Are the Taliban, as they are today, are an 'armed force'? Or are they just a bunch of thugs with guns and jeeps. Is there a command structure? Is there a communication structure? Are their military bases? Is their organized actions among geographically disparate groups?

I don't believe the Taliban are guerillas similiar to what is fighting in Iraq today ... they can't just slip away and disappear into the local population.

They do have some organization and fairly effective CCC (command, control, and communications). In fact they are gearing up for a pretty strong offensive come spring. Their bases are the villages in the territory they more or less occupy at the moment. Some allow them voluntarily, while others are coerced.

As far as them being able to blend in, they might be able too, especially in the villages that support them.

I think this spring offensive they seem to be gearing up for is a good thing. Hopefully our forces will be able to crush them into total ineffectiveness.

Jeff

 

[Don Roley]

And, the next time a terrorist attack strikes, there will be little in the way of military force that can stop it.

Of course, doing nothing until they do certainly will not help. Finding them and taking them out might just help. The military seems to be the right tool for that- among others. Of all the talk of overkill you want to point to, I have never known someone to survive because they were shot too many times. As long as we employ other means as well, I think we should use the military when armed force is needed overseas. I do not see how it would hurt- but you seem to think that we should do nothing when you shift through all the red herrings about Iraq and such.

Honestly, can you please stop trying to divert attention to other matters such as the supreme court and Iraq, etc and just try to convince us why we should let the Taliban come back into power and not use the military against Al Queada?

 

[michaeledward]

Of course, doing nothing until they do certainly will not help. Finding them and taking them out might just help. The military seems to be the right tool for that- among others. Of all the talk of overkill you want to point to, I have never known someone to survive because they were shot too many times. As long as we employ other means as well, I think we should use the military when armed force is needed overseas. I do not see how it would hurt- but you seem to think that we should do nothing when you shift through all the red herrings about Iraq and such.

Honestly, can you please stop trying to divert attention to other matters such as the supreme court and Iraq, etc and just try to convince us why we should let the Taliban come back into power and not use the military against Al Queada?

It seems so odd, that you only quote portions of my arguments, then decry 'red herrings'. If you can't follow my arguements, please ask, I will be glad to connect the dots. But you seem to not want the dots connected. ... and you were the one claiming to be able to follow logic.

The military seems to be the right tool for that- among others.
​

This seems to be our primary disagreement. I believe the military is an ineffective tool for a man hunt; be the hunt for Osame bin Laden, or Mullah Omar. I have never advocated the abandonment of the 'others' you mention.

I think we should use the military when armed force is needed overseas. I do not see how it would hurt
​

Your inability to observe the damage to American standing in the world because of an ineffective use of military force does not negate that damage. Further, when there are 15 or more combat bridgades in Iraq severely restricts the ability to respond to threats elsewhere in the world. And the damage being inflicted to the American economy at a rate of two billion dollars a week is not insignificant.

can you please stop trying to divert attention to other matters such as the supreme court and Iraq, etc and just try to convince us why we should let the Taliban come back into power and not use the military against Al Queada
​

I'm wondering if you can ask a single question ... compound questions such as this demand through and complicated answers ... which you then decry as 'red herrings'.

I thought one of the principles of the American ideal was that the people have the right to self-determination. If the Afghanis who are members of the Taliban assume power and provide for the people, who are we to impose our will upon them. Again, the words - Puppet Regime - come to mind. We have become the muscle to Karzai's figurehead.

And the military is, at this point an ineffective weapon against al Qaeda because al Qaeda has no centralized command or communication, are not located in a single geographic territory which can be captured. Use of the military force increases hostile feelings toward America among non-allied indiginous personnel. Military Force functions as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda.

 

[michaeledward]

They do have some organization and fairly effective CCC (command, control, and communications). In fact they are gearing up for a pretty strong offensive come spring. Their bases are the villages in the territory they more or less occupy at the moment. Some allow them voluntarily, while others are coerced.

As far as them being able to blend in, they might be able too, especially in the villages that support them.

I think this spring offensive they seem to be gearing up for is a good thing. Hopefully our forces will be able to crush them into total ineffectiveness.

Jeff

Perhaps you know why the military is targeting individuals in Jeeps rather than those command, control and communications centers?

I have heard noise about the 'major spring offensive' for some time now .... it begs the question, why is the military waiting for the attack?

You say, that we know where they are. We know from where their command is organizing and operating. We know they are planning to attack. We have weapons and intelligence gathering tools that can strike anywhere in the world under any weather condition.

And we are going to sit back and wait for them to launch an offensive?

Something doesn't seem right about that.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Perhaps you know why the military is targeting individuals in Jeeps rather than those command, control and communications centers?

I have heard noise about the 'major spring offensive' for some time now .... it begs the question, why is the military waiting for the attack?

You say, that we know where they are. We know from where their command is organizing and operating. We know they are planning to attack. We have weapons and intelligence gathering tools that can strike anywhere in the world under any weather condition.

And we are going to sit back and wait for them to launch an offensive?

Something doesn't seem right about that.

Well, it's possible the man that was taken out was part of their CCC. Also, remember, a lot of the operations that happen we'll never hear about. Not a lot of embedded reporters going down range with the SF and SEAL operators. In many cases they won't report the successes they have so the enemy can't learn about their methods.

As far as waiting for their offensive, it's often quite easier and safer to allow someone to start an offensive. While mobile, they will be easier to spot and if they do manage to get to their OBJs, they'll run into dug in and readied troops. We can easily use the terrain and air power to funnel them to great killing zones.

 

[jazkiljok]

not sure if this is understood. currently the afghan conflict is under the command of NATO. Operations by NATO members including Canada, the UK, Australia as well as the USA. it seems that everyone here thinks that the USA is the only force there in military operations and peacekeeping missions.


Alqueda is still a loose affiliation when it comes to their designation in Afghanistan. mostly it means foreign fighters but even that is sometimes blurry with many region clans/tribes from neighboring countries having some cross over connection to afghan tribes thru years of nomadic traditions.

i'm not sure how much money is really being invested in targetting osama by himself. it doesn't seem to be strategically that important-- i actually believe that our gov't policy is more interested in destroying the organization's bank and killing off key members who actually make the bombs that are employed in their terror campaigns. osama would become a martyr if/when he is killed-- not really necessary-- if he's isolated and kept from public view-- he may well just fizzle out as a lightning rod for islamic extremists.


just some random thoughts on a long and winding discussion here.

peace.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, I do know that most operations in Afghanistan transferred to NATO command about 8 months ago, or so. Under that NATO command there are 12,000 United States soldiers, as well as a number represented from other members of the alliance.

In addition, I believe there are 16,000 Americans in Afghanistan under American command. (Take my numbers with a grain of salt here - I believe it is 28,000 Americans in Afghanistan under both commands - but I could have the numbers a bit mixed up).

The bomb that killed Gafoor was launched from a NATO plane. I have not seen reports as to the NATO member that was actually piloting the craft.

NATO forces were not in the city where this bombing took place because of an earlier agreement to not be present in the city. Forces from the Taliban came into the city and took control. NATO killed 6 high ranking officers from that initial over-running of the town; one of whom was Mullah Gafoor's brother. It is believed that Mullah Gafoor was in the region to review the conditions of his brothers death.

But, of note, is that the locals in the town signed an agreement to keep NATO out.

 

[Kreth]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Kreth/Jeff Velten
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[Don Roley]

Thank you to the Martialtalk staff for stepping in before this got even hotter.
On to the subject.

Your inability to observe the damage to American standing in the world because of an ineffective use of military force does not negate that damage.

I think this a central point to the way we disagree and I am pulling it up for more discussion.

Now in this case, the case of Afghanistan, what is ineffective about the use of military force? You have argued that we should not be using the military to kill terrorists in Afghanistan. Why should we pull out and let the Taliban take over and what is the ineffective part about it.

Oh, with a few million people in uniform and several dozen missions, you will not be hard pressed to find some rather extreme cases of stupidity. Schoolgirls getting crushed by an armored vehicle in South Korea, a wedding party bombed in Afghanistan, hot shot pilots breaking rules and sending an Italian gondola full of screaming people to their deaths..... But I do not see enough of a justification to pull all our troops back and stop using it to go after those that want to kill us. Perhaps you can explain. Your comments that AQ is not a centralized orginization and thus the military is not effective against them is not vaild IMO. Orginizations like that have been dealt with by military power to good effect. And I do not see how else we could go after them other than using the military.

Also,

Perhaps you know why the military is targeting individuals in Jeeps rather than those command, control and communications centers

Perhaps I should point out that despite what Hollywood has led us to expect, CCCs are far more likely to be guys living in tents in the field than bunkers. A few guys moving from place to place with the means to plan things and the means to send out messages is what you will find for sommand centers even in the US military unless you are really behind the lines a good ways.

This is even more important when you are not regular soldiers. Mao, Tito and others who were fighting the government never stayed in one place more than 24 hours until very late in the battle. Because to stay in one place increases the risk that you will be found and targetted. And in this age, a guy with a few aides driving around in jeep and living out of a tent and with a satellite phone can give orders to and coordinate operatives on the other side of the planet.

So you see, this guy quite probably was a mobile CCC. Whenever we find where they are, we take them out. Which also answers your questions about what we are doing about the expected Spring offensive. They are not going to make it easy for us to find them, and when we do we take action.

Also,

I thought one of the principles of the American ideal was that the people have the right to self-determination. If the Afghanis who are members of the Taliban assume power and provide for the people, who are we to impose our will upon them. Again, the words - Puppet Regime - come to mind. We have become the muscle to Karzai's figurehead.

I really do not know how I can deal with the above seriously. If you were talking about an election, I could understand. But Karazai was elected and there are folks who want to drive him out by use of force against the wishes of the majority of people. I have heard a lot of (valid) complaints about how the US has cozied up to repressive regimes that never gave their people a say in power. Looking at what you have written, it seems that you think that we were merely respecting the will of the masses of that country by dealing with the people in power.

 

[michaeledward]

You have argued that we should not be using the military to kill terrorists in Afghanistan.

Please find in my words where I said the United States should not kill terrorists?

If you are going to make up words that I said, discussion becomes exteremely difficult.

 

[Don Roley]

Please find in my words where I said the United States should not kill terrorists?

If you are going to make up words that I said, discussion becomes exteremely difficult.

Well, maybe you should stick to the quote I used. I talked about you saying that you did not think the military should be used to kill terrorists in Afghanistan.

And from post #116 here is a quote by you.

To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal.

Hope that clears that up. I could post more, but this seems enough unless you want to argue the point.

PS- if you want to quibble over whether the Taliban are terrorists or not- I would ask you to name one tactic such as suicide bombing that AQ does not.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, maybe you should stick to the quote I used. I talked about you saying that you did not think the military should be used to kill terrorists in Afghanistan.

I believe the expression is 'Sauce for the goose'.

You paraphrase, and change the meaning of my words, then get testy about what I say? Sweet.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, Don Roley.

And from post #116 here is a quote by you.

Hope that clears that up. I could post more, but this seems enough unless you want to argue the point.

PS- if you want to quibble over whether the Taliban are terrorists or not- I would ask you to name one tactic such as suicide bombing that AQ does not.

Are the Taliban al Qaeda? I think that is a fair question. You have made that supposition, without support. If you wish to discuss your apparent position that the two organizations are interchangable, that's fine. But, I do recognize them as two organizations.

And somehow, I think you will end up editing your post script. It is a very unclear sentence.

 

[Don Roley]

I believe the expression is 'Sauce for the goose'.

You paraphrase, and change the meaning of my words, then get testy about what I say? Sweet.

So how did I change the meaning of your words? You seem to be doing your best to try to enrage me, but it is not working.

How did I change the meaning of

To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal.

by stating it as

You have argued that we should not be using the military to kill terrorists in Afghanistan.

The Taliban engages in suicide bombings and the attacking of civilians in Afghanistan. Is that not the tactics of a terrorist orginization?

Please stop trying to insult me and make me mad. I really would like you to explain you position so that we can all understand it.

 

[michaeledward]

Please stop trying to insult me and make me mad. I really would like you to explain you position so that we can all understand it.

Don Roley, I have no desire to insult you, nor to enrage you.

It seems that you are the only person who seems unable to understand my position. My position has been spelled out regularly throughout this thread. You just don't seem to like it.

A.
The United States Military is a blunt weapon. Fighting al Qaeda requires a weapon that can be executed with surgical precision. The United States Military is not that weapon. Although certain units within the military can function with the appropriate level of precision, they are not being deployed or utilized in that manner.

B.
The United State Military, as it is currently deployed is, at best, creating instability in the region or, at worst, is functioning as the muscle to dictatorial power structures that we have put in place; "We've put our Sons of Bitches in power, and you ungrateful wretches better learn to accept them!"

C.
The Taliban are irrelevant. They are a law enforcement problem in Afghanistan. When we turned the rule of the country back over to Karzai, they became his problem. Not ours. Dropping Laser Guided or Satellite Guided Bombs from F-16's on to these criminals is just wrong.

 

[Don Roley]

It seems that you are the only person who seems unable to understand my position.

If one person can't understand you it may be because they lack the ability. When a lot of people can't understand you, the probable fault is with you.

A.
The United States Military is a blunt weapon. Fighting al Qaeda requires a weapon that can be executed with surgical precision. The United States Military is not that weapon. Although certain units within the military can function with the appropriate level of precision, they are not being deployed or utilized in that manner.

I disagree. There are both special forces units and bombers working in Afghanistan and to good effect. One group sees a guy with a lot of weapons drving along and another branch drops a shell on him. You need the full possibility of the military to not hobble them and let them do their job to the best of their ability.

B.
The United State Military, as it is currently deployed is, at best, creating instability in the region or, at worst, is functioning as the muscle to dictatorial power structures that we have put in place; "We've put our Sons of Bitches in power, and you ungrateful wretches better learn to accept them!"

Karzai was brought to power in a UN- monitored election. I do not think you would find that many will agree with your description of his government as a dictatorship. I hardly see how letting the Taliban come to power again will advance the cause of democracy.

C.
The Taliban are irrelevant. They are a law enforcement problem in Afghanistan. When we turned the rule of the country back over to Karzai, they became his problem. Not ours. Dropping Laser Guided or Satellite Guided Bombs from F-16's on to these criminals is just wrong.

So you are saying that it is Karzai's problem, not ours, and yet you take offense when someone points out that you do not think that the US military should be killing terrorists in Afghanistan. It seems to be the same thing said in a different manner.

And I would hardly call the Taliban irrelevent in this age where 19 guys with box cutters did the damage they did. I do not think that you will find many who would agree with your idea that they should just be ignored. I think they should be taken out before they get a chance to bomb another school or bus full of children.

 

[michaeledward]

And I would hardly call the Taliban irrelevent in this age where 19 guys with box cutters did the damage they did..

The 19 guys with box cutters of 9/11 were not Taliban, they were al Qaeda.
The Taliban was a political/military organization running Afghanistan.

The Taliban were primarily Afghani.
The 19 guys were primarily Saudi.


If you refuse to understand the basic differences in these distinctions, we need to be deathly afraid of any group of 19 guys, anywhere in the world, at all times. At that point, everything becomes meaningless. Let's just nuke the world.