Afghanistan's Tet?

[john2054]

A series of attacks in the Afghan capital Kabul were in retaliation for Koran burnings, a US Marine urination video and the Kandahar massacre, the Taliban has reportedly claimed.:shock:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A series of attacks in the Afghan capital Kabul were in retaliation for Koran burnings, a US Marine urination video and the Kandahar massacre, the Taliban has reportedly claimed.:shock:

What does that have to do with the Tet Offensive in Vietnam? I guess I'm missing that part.

 

[john2054]

The Whole point Bill is that in the Tet, when the Allies had just about written them off as a dead dog, the Vietcong pounced back into action and, even if only for a limited time, showed that they were still a force to be reckoned with. If not a decisive military victory, this was at least a victory over the public's opinion of the war. And as history proves, there was no going back from there.

The same thing is happening here in Afghanistan. The Taliban, in killing that many more people again, and putting Karsai the coward into lockdown, has proved its resilliance to the foreign invaders yet again. I very much doubt there will be any turning back from here...http://uk.news.yahoo.com/kabul-under-attack-blasts-near-embassies-135958158.html

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Whole point Bill is that in the Tet, when the Allies had just about written them off as a dead dog, the Vietcong pounced back into action and, even if only for a limited time, showed that they were still a force to be reckoned with. If not a decisive military victory, this was at least a victory over the public's opinion of the war. And as history proves, there was no going back from there.

The same thing is happening here in Afghanistan. The Taliban, in killing that many more people again, and putting Karsai the coward into lockdown, has proved its resilliance to the foreign invaders yet again. I very much doubt there will be any turning back from here...http://uk.news.yahoo.com/kabul-under-attack-blasts-near-embassies-135958158.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive

There are no parallels that I can see. I also think your analysis of Tet is seriously skewed.

I'm also not interested in discussing how horrible the US is yet again. If you do not like the US, do not live here. Consider this conversation ended.

 

[john2054]

Please don't think that your reliance on wikipedia gives you any authority over the issue. That is as flawed a website as YOUR argument. And oh yeah, I never said I wanted to live in America, not that I would be allowed anyway!

To gain a proper understanding of the American war in Vietnam - why it was fought, why it was lost, and why it teaches us important lessons for the future - one must understand the Vietnamese people. from a review of the book on Amazon, for an insiders take on Vietnam.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vietnam-The...5804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334505093&sr=8-1

 

[Big Don]

The reason the Vietnam war played out the way it did was the inability of anyone in Washington D.C. to muster the cojones to fight to win. Sadly, this sounds familiar.

 

[WC_lun]

A reliance on body count as a measuring stick for success did not help the US cause in Vietnam either.

I do not believe there is a close paralell between Tet and this recent wave of violence in Afganastan.

 

[oftheherd1]

Please don't think that your reliance on wikipedia gives you any authority over the issue. That is as flawed a website as YOUR argument. And oh yeah, I never said I wanted to live in America, not that I would be allowed anyway!

To gain a proper understanding of the American war in Vietnam - why it was fought, why it was lost, and why it teaches us important lessons for the future - one must understand the Vietnamese people. from a review of the book on Amazon, for an insiders take on Vietnam.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vietnam-The...5804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334505093&sr=8-1

One does indeed have to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. Many things on wikipedia are well written and factual. Others are biased in one way or another.

I have heard of the book you mention, however I have not read it. But I am curious sir, what would prevent the writer of the book you mention from having biases as well, thereby invalidating what you have said?

 

[Xue Sheng]

The Whole point Bill is that in the Tet, when the Allies had just about written them off as a dead dog, the Vietcong pounced back into action and, even if only for a limited time, showed that they were still a force to be reckoned with.

When did the US or its allies write the Taliban off as a dead dog?

 

[Carol]

When did the US or its allies write the Taliban off as a dead dog?

The local transition is well underway, but I don't think the Taliban has been written off. Negotiations with the Taliban were made to turn off cell service in certain districts before the evening call to prayer -- after Taliban insurgents kept blowing the towers up. You can google Afghanistan cell towers blown up for more information and examples.

Violent behaviour tends to be lessened in the winter months. Now that warmer weather is here, insurgent behaviour will be hotter as well.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The local transition is well underway, but I don't think the Taliban has been written off. Negotiations with the Taliban were made to turn off cell service in certain districts before the evening call to prayer -- after Taliban insurgents kept blowing the towers up. You can google Afghanistan cell towers blown up for more information and examples.

Violent behaviour tends to be lessened in the winter months. Now that warmer weather is here, insurgent behaviour will be hotter as well.

I did not think we had written off the Taliban as a dead dog, at least I had not seen or read it anywhere, and I was wondering where the OP got that and then used it to compare Afghan to Tet

 

[john2054]

Nice one oftheherd1. I'd just like to say that what the author of that book does is a historical account of factual events, drawing largely on facts from the ground, both in America (where he is based), and also taken from the general media sources. He writes in such a way that as not to impress upon the reader in any way shape or form his own opinions, just a portrayal of the facts as they stand. And this is to be commended.

Also to other posters, when I said we here in the west have written the taliban off as a dead dog, perhaps you should understand that I was speaking ideologically speaking and not just as an active political force. It is only natural as part of the process which enables an army to kill an enemy, it has to dehumanise them. but before we fall too far down that rabbit hole, id like you to remember that the very name and concept of the taliban itself is a force which has largely been invented by the west, much as a middle eastern bogey man which will steal your women away at night, and in this sense has taken root by elements that hate us so much that they want to be known as our enemies! In which case we have to ask why do they hate us so much, is this justified, and whatever the answer what are we going to do about it? And here i have to reiterate my place on the side of those against the war. There is a growing contingent of us now you know?

 

[Tez3]

John, your knowledge of the Taliban is flawed as is your perception of how we regard them, no one at all hads written them off, they are regarded as every as dangerous as they always have been.
Every sane person is against war, that includes the vast majority of service people btw. It's about time however you started looking at the situation through non biased eyes, I'm aware of your sympathy and support for the radical Muslims but that way of looking at things is as every bit skewed as that you accuse the supposedly 'pro' war posters here of.

 

[oftheherd1]

Nice one oftheherd1. I'd just like to say that what the author of that book does is a historical account of factual events, drawing largely on facts from the ground, both in America (where he is based), and also taken from the general media sources. He writes in such a way that as not to impress upon the reader in any way shape or form his own opinions, just a portrayal of the facts as they stand. And this is to be commended.

Also to other posters, when I said we here in the west have written the taliban off as a dead dog, perhaps you should understand that I was speaking ideologically speaking and not just as an active political force. It is only natural as part of the process which enables an army to kill an enemy, it has to dehumanise them. but before we fall too far down that rabbit hole, id like you to remember that the very name and concept of the taliban itself is a force which has largely been invented by the west, much as a middle eastern bogey man which will steal your women away at night, and in this sense has taken root by elements that hate us so much that they want to be known as our enemies! In which case we have to ask why do they hate us so much, is this justified, and whatever the answer what are we going to do about it? And here i have to reiterate my place on the side of those against the war. There is a growing contingent of us now you know?

Nice one? I'm not sure what that means. But I think you have answered my question. If he is taking everything from general media sources, that doesn't make him any more believable, nor any less biased. There was a lot of media reporting. Much of it was heavily biased for or against the war. As time went by, more was against the war. I think a lot was misinformed, but that is just my opinion, and my bias. I doubt the author is reporting much that doesn't fit his bias. And I really wonder how he can tell anyone so much about how the Vietnamese culture and thought processes worked it he was never there.

 

[Tez3]

A series of attacks in the Afghan capital Kabul were in retaliation for Koran burnings, a US Marine urination video and the Kandahar massacre, the Taliban has reportedly claimed.:shock:

The little emoticon was unnecessary don't you think?

'Retailitation' attakcs, more complicated than you think, as you yourself pointed out, there's a war on, the Taliban are pushing to find weaknesses in the Afghan forces, they don't want the Afghan government troops and police to be in control, the Allies do. The political arguments there are a different discussion. The Allies are leaving Afghanistan, hopefully by 2014, we hope we are leaving a stable 'democratic' government and security forces behind, at any rate it will be more democratic than the Taliban though not democratic as we either wish or want it to be. However the Taliban's interests aren't served by this unless they sit around the table and talk and are willing to go through the democratic process of actually getting voted in. The attacks, are expected and the Afghan security forces aren't doing too bad a job at repelling them, there's hope there at least.


Comparing Afghan and Vietnam is naive to say the least,different era's, different armies, different politicians and commanders. Different enemies even, the Taliban isn't the afghan army, it's an army of insurgents who kill and maim as many if not more of their own people than they do of the 'enemy' ie the Allies. the terrorise their own people, they blow up their own people and they don't want a democratically run country they want themselves to be in sole control. It's not even about religion because there's as many if not more devout Muslims are against the Taliban than are for it. It's about power and control, that's what the Taliban are fighting for, don't think for one minute they are seeking to 'free' their country from the invader, they are in fact seeking to replace the 'invaders' as the ones in control. It is a war but nothing like the Vietnam war at all.


I understand that you have had a very one sided 'indoctrination' of the Afghan situation and see it in black and white but the fact is it's very much not as simple as you've been told.


I was around in the time of Vietnam, doing a job in the military that meant I had a good knowledge of what was going on in most countries espeically those invovled in wars, I was in regular contact with counterparts on the American side. I was also very aware of the public's opinion of the Vietnam war. It seemed at the time, people were tired of the war and felt that American troops shouldn't be there, there was a lot of anti war demos etc but I don't remember the public perception being one of thinking the Viet Cong were defeated etc. It was all about bring the American troops home, no one actually was really thinking much about any Vietnamase army from either side, the public perception was that the troops should come home.

Incidents that happen in the Allied forces are dealt with severely if proved to be illegal and yes people are found guilty and are punished, we can't and don't hide the fact that some service people, just like their civilian counter arts who have criminal records for violence agianst women etc don't behave in the way they are supposed to so measures are taken to punish the guilty and to prevent incidents happening where possible. They do their best, compare this to the Taliban who blow up their own people deliberately, throw acid in school girls faces, stone women to death, torture and kill anyone they want without sanctions and then compare moral codes. John you have been indoctrinated and cannot see the wood for the trees anymore I'm, afraid. Seek out some opinions from those who don't seek to destroy but who can offer an opinion without trying to radicalise you even more.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

Comparing Afghan and Vietnam is naive to say the least,different era's, different armies, different politicians and commanders. Different enemies even, the Taliban isn't the afghan army, it's an army of insurgents who kill and maim as many if not more of their own people than they do of the 'enemy' ie the Allies. the terrorise their own people, they blow up their own people and they don't want a democratically run country they want themselves to be in sole control. It's not even about religion because there's as many if not more devout Muslims are against the Taliban than are for it. It's about power and control, that's what the Taliban are fighting for, don't think for one minute they are seeking to 'free' their country from the invader, they are in fact seeking to replace the 'invaders' as the ones in control. It is a war but nothing like the Vietnam war at all.

...

I was around in the time of Vietnam, doing a job in the military that meant I had a good knowledge of what was going on in most countries espeically those invovled in wars, I was in regular contact with counterparts on the American side. I was also very aware of the public's opinion of the Vietnam war. It seemed at the time, people were tired of the war and felt that American troops shouldn't be there, there was a lot of anti war demos etc but I don't remember the public perception being one of thinking the Viet Cong were defeated etc. It was all about bring the American troops home, no one actually was really thinking much about any Vietnamase army from either side, the public perception was that the troops should come home.

Incidents that happen in the Allied forces are dealt with severely if proved to be illegal and yes people are found guilty and are punished, we can't and don't hide the fact that some service people, just like their civilian counter arts who have criminal records for violence agianst women etc don't behave in the way they are supposed to so measures are taken to punish the guilty and to prevent incidents happening where possible. They do their best, compare this to the Taliban who blow up their own people deliberately, throw acid in school girls faces, stone women to death, torture and kill anyone they want without sanctions and then compare moral codes. John you have been indoctrinated and cannot see the wood for the trees anymore I'm, afraid. Seek out some opinions from those who don't seek to destroy but who can offer an opinion without trying to radicalise you even more.

Maybe comparing Afganistan and Vietnam, and the VC/NVA and Taliban aren't so far off after all.

 

[Tez3]

Maybe comparing Afganistan and Vietnam, and the VC/NVA and Taliban aren't so far off after all.

Not really, for one thing the American army was a conscript one not a professional one. Things that happened in Vietnam were hidden or whitewashed, green on green. The Vietnamese weren't similiar at all to the Taliban, the political agenda was different, in fact everything was different. For one thing it's not the 'Americans' in Afghan, it's a NATO force plus some other countries. There is also an 'end' date.

 

[oftheherd1]

Not really, for one thing the American army was a conscript one not a professional one. Things that happened in Vietnam were hidden or whitewashed, green on green. The Vietnamese weren't similiar at all to the Taliban, the political agenda was different, in fact everything was different. For one thing it's not the 'Americans' in Afghan, it's a NATO force plus some other countries. There is also an 'end' date.

First, I was talking about the similarities between the terrorist tactics of the VC/NVA and the taliban. Insurgents need the support of the local population. If they don't get the willing support, they will try and force support. That is what occurred in Vietnam and is now occurring in Afganistan. In that way they are similar. The mechanics of fighting in different geography, and the differences in culture have nothing to do with the fact that a decision was made by the VC/NVA to force compliance by incredibly inhumane treatment of non-combatants. I see nothing to tell me the taliban are not doing the same.

Second, to say things (implying all) were hidden or whitewashed is painting with a broad brush. How do you know that all crimes were hidden or whitewashed? And how is a conscripted army so much worse than a professional army?

As to the political agenda, it seems the same to me. Complete political (probably by standards in the Koran) control by the taliban, but regardless, complete control of the country and its inhabitants. That was what the VC/NVA wanted, and ultimately gained. The type of political system is not really important, as dictatorships all operate pretty much the same, whatever political "system" they choose to use as a cover.

 

[Tez3]

First, I was talking about the similarities between the terrorist tactics of the VC/NVA and the taliban. Insurgents need the support of the local population. If they don't get the willing support, they will try and force support. That is what occurred in Vietnam and is now occurring in Afganistan. In that way they are similar. The mechanics of fighting in different geography, and the differences in culture have nothing to do with the fact that a decision was made by the VC/NVA to force compliance by incredibly inhumane treatment of non-combatants. I see nothing to tell me the taliban are not doing the same.

Second, to say things (implying all) were hidden or whitewashed is painting with a broad brush. How do you know that all crimes were hidden or whitewashed? And how is a conscripted army so much worse than a professional army?

I think you are misunderstanding me here. A conscripted army isn't worse than a professional one but a conscripted soldier is less engaged in doing the job than a professional soldier who makes it their career for 20 odd years. A conscript is less well trained by the army simply because they don't consider it worth putting the time, energy and money into someone they know will only be in the army a couple of years. A professional soldier's training is going to be far more comprehensive. An army of consripts is a different animal to an army of professionals so please don't read into what I said something I didn't mean. Crimes were covered up in Vietnam, we know that's so because the information came out later, I assume too knowing human nature tha crimes will be covered up if possible by people in Afghanistan but the difference now is that commanders etc are far more aware of the consquences of not being honest and of the feeling that if something is wrong it's reported and dealt with properly.

As to the political agenda, it seems the same to me. Complete political (probably by standards in the Koran) control by the taliban, but regardless, complete control of the country and its inhabitants. That was what the VC/NVA wanted, and ultimately gained. The type of political system is not really important, as dictatorships all operate pretty much the same, whatever political "system" they choose to use as a cover.

The Americans seem to have a fear of communism to such an extent that they will countenence and support dictatorships of all other kinds as long as they are anti communist. The communists in Vietnam were fighting against a dictatorship, it wasn't a democratice government they were trying to replace. Now whether you regard a communist government as a dictatorship or not the fact remains that America in Vietnam was not supporting a democratically elected government, it was trying to stop a communist one. Communism might not be your thing but if the people of a country wish to have a communist government it's no business of any other country, the sole purpose of America being in Vietnam was to stop the communists not to advance democracy or to rid the world of a terrorist organisation.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_vietnam_1954_1968.html

 

[Xue Sheng]

The Americans seem to have a fear of communism to such an extent that they will countenence and support dictatorships of all other kinds as long as they are anti communist. The communists in Vietnam were fighting against a dictatorship, it wasn't a democratice government they were trying to replace. Now whether you regard a communist government as a dictatorship or not the fact remains that America in Vietnam was not supporting a democratically elected government, it was trying to stop a communist one. Communism might not be your thing but if the people of a country wish to have a communist government it's no business of any other country, the sole purpose of America being in Vietnam was to stop the communists not to advance democracy or to rid the world of a terrorist organisation.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_vietnam_1954_1968.html

The French there first, we came second and if I remember correctly most of our advisors said we should not go there

And as a side note when you say "The Americans" you are pretty much saying every single person that lives within the country of America and in the mid-60s that was about 194,000,000 and today it is about 311,800,000. So do you honestly believe that Americans seem to have a fear of communism...all Americans?

Sorry, I realize you likely do not mean every single American but I have a REAL pet peeve about gross generalizations and I am kind of getting sick and tired of so many blaming "Americans" when in fact we have much less control over what those in charge do than most outside of the USA believe and many of those inside as well... and that has not changed for the better since the Mid 60s