13 Comments

• 

  rjd_jr at 07:30 AM JST - 24th June

  U.S. led forces here, U.S. led forces there, air strikes everywhere. Well, since the Iraqi army still can't seem to do anything, after 5 years, without being led by the hand, I figured it would be even more challenging in Afghanistan.

• 

  rajakumar at 07:52 AM JST - 24th June

  USA and all other armies, all doing their strongholds things. So are the anti-govt rebels and others. These wars in afghanistan and iraq,they are the new wars of 2000s, which the world must,face. Its poses many new challenges to all in afghanistan region/iraq region to handle it, in, most safe manner for the people in the regions.

• 

  wanderlust at 09:51 AM JST - 24th June

  The five o'clock follies forty years on, back to body counts as a measure of success...

• 

  japanyesterday at 10:22 AM JST - 24th June

  those two civilians who were killed, their whole family will join the fight against the US keeping the cycle going. proud of troops anyway.

• 

  SezWho2 at 11:36 AM JST - 24th June

  wanderlust,

  A lot of people continue to think we would have won that war if we had just kept on counting. Is Afghanistan the same? I don't know but I don't think so.

  Eisenhower once stated, I believe, that we could not have elections in Vietnam because the people would vote for Ho Chi Minh. I don't think that's the same situation as with the Taliban. Afghanis may not like the US/coalition presence and, at some point if the bloodshed does not cease, they may come to prefer the domestic devil to the foreign one. However, if we had another free election today, I don't think there is much chance that the Taliban would be given the mandate.

  That being said, I don't think body count is a good measure of success. This is still a battle, as they say, for hearts and minds. Unfortunately, that is a lot more difficult to measure. But one measure of it would be the success or failure in creating an Afghani military that could--on its own--stand up to the Taliban. Again unfortunately, very few Afghani battle units seem to be militarily ready and we have invested a lot of time and money in this.

  History does not seem to favor foreign powers who stay in Afghanistan and attempt to grind it into submission. But history is also a record of firsts. The question, I think, is what do we think should prevail in Afghanistan? the will and desire of the Afghanis (and if so what is that)? the will and the desire of the Taliban?

  I think it might be possible to achieve something like a success if we can be seen as facilitating the will and the desire of the Afghanis. If, however, we are seen as dictating it, which sometimes seems to be the case, I'm not sure how much hope we have. Or how much the Afghanis have.

• 

  SuperLib at 02:54 PM JST - 24th June

  those two civilians who were killed, their whole family will join the fight against the US keeping the cycle going. proud of troops anyway.

  I grow tired of people who claim a Muslim's only response to seeing a relative killed is to start killing others as revenge. Some people must think it's part of the genetic structure of being Muslim.

  When terrorists blew up trains in Spain, did you go around telling the world that the relatives of those who died would take up arms and start killing Muslims for revenge? If not....why didn't you?

  Yet when a Muslim is killed by the West your first assumption is that his entire family are now terrorists. Talk about adding insult to injury...not only do they lose a family member they are now accused of being terrorists.

• 

  Sarge at 03:00 PM JST - 24th June

  "55 militants killed"

  Message to friends and family members of dead militants - Being a militant bites the big one. Don't be one.

• 

  SuperLib at 03:00 PM JST - 24th June

  The five o'clock follies forty years on, back to body counts as a measure of success...

  It's a new story. 55 people died so that's what's reported. What else would you have them say?

• 

  RedMeatKoolAid at 04:01 PM JST - 24th June

  "...they may come to prefer the domestic devil to the foreign one."

  Still the Left romanticizes the 'insurgency' in Afghanistan.

  Prior to the US-led coalition's 2001 invasion and liberation of that unfortunate country, Afghanistan was governed from Kabul by a kind of supreme council of six Taliban, not one Afghani among them.

• 

  WilliB at 04:42 PM JST - 24th June

  It is so good to know that they don´t have jihadists in Afghanistan... only "militants". You have to love political correctness in the media.

• 

  Madverts at 08:06 PM JST - 24th June

  Superlib,

  People who live in third world hell-holes that know noting but war might not reflect on things in the same manner that you or I might.

  Eye for an eye and all that...

• 

  SezWho2 at 10:41 PM JST - 24th June

  RedMeatKoolAid,

  There was nothing romantic in that statement of possibility. No matter who comprised the the Supreme Council in Kabul, they were kept in place with the cooperation of tribal Afghanis. If the Afghanis begin to suspect that Afghanistan is really being governed from Washington by a kind of supreme puppet master, the worm may turn.

  Had you read more carefully you would have noted that there was not a jot of sympathy expressed for the Taliban nor was there any suggestion that the Afghanis would prefer a government by them at the current time. Slavish devotion to hoo-hah Americanism and hysterical opposition to anything that you can conceivably label as belonging to "the Left" will lead to exactly the kind of mistakes we must avoid if Afghanistan is to become anything resembling a success.

• 

  sailwind at 11:01 PM JST - 24th June

  Better headline would be 'Taliban Lose Yet Another Battle With Coalition Forces', Just as accurate as this one.

Register or login to add a comment!