The Taliban invades villages in Aghanistan. They take and control areas which are not theirs. That is invading.
Definition of 'invade':
''An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a ...''
The Taliban do not belong to a separate geo political entity. They are Afghans. Although, this is a stellar example of why Afghanistan is a failed state. It incorporates a massive swathe of different (nationalities) tribes with different goals and interests.
To win in Afghanistan, the Taliban are going to have to be negotiated with. They make up a quite a large portion of the population. They will not just disappear, no matter how many troops or UAVs you throw at them.
Just look at all successful counter insurgency efforts. The victors won through words, not force.
I always look at war as more of the typical argument. It's usually started over different beliefs. In the end, no one wins. You all lose time and energy, in this case, lives and money. I do support the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan to stabilize the country more to the point where we can leave.
You guys have to realize, one of the Generals himself said that Afghanistan is not like Iraq. The regular citizens were being terrorized by Taliban in Iraq, and when the U.S. Troops came in, we were the only ones with power willing to protect them. That's why the Iraqi citizens complied so well with us. I look at Afghanistan like North Boston during the 1970s. Almost everyone was Italian/had family in the Mafia, and the Mafia was more powerful than the police. So, the Mafia took care of all the problems. In Afghanistan, the citizens were actually helped by Taliban and Al Qaeda, and when we started to go into Afghanistan, the terrorists were already there(they didn't invade, they were already there) and told the citizens that the U.S. was the Muslim version of the Devil(basically). Now, granted, not all of the population complied with the Terrorists. As it has already been said, there are several different tribes/groups of people in Afghanistan, and some of them will be easy to negotiate with, others, not so much. The Taliban and Al Qaeda presently have more tribes that support them financially and politically, so that is one of the things our officers will try to change. Another point I want to bring up is the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not easily negotiated with, mainly because of their religion. They feel the Allah chose them, and that all other religions are blasphemy(a little like Christianity and Judaism, hmm...)So they go around and think that if they kill the enemies, then Allah will reward them with afterlife. So, basically, if you try and negotiate with them, they will just pull out their AK's and say, "Praise Allah!" Speaking about the fact that they can stay in hiding for 18 months, as long as our troops play their cards right with the tribespeople, the citizens of Afghanistan will become trustworthy of us and us of them. After the warriors come out of hiding, they will be regarded as cowards. Now, this relating to my last paragraph about warrior-suicide, they most likely face three possible outcomes: 1-They go into hiding, and when they come out, it is basically the same as before. They still have the trust and support of the people, and they gain power and overthrow the government. 2-The go into hiding, and when they come out, the Afghans(hopefully all of the tribes) have now decided that the U.S. is more trustworthy than Taliban and Al Qaeda, and do not trust or support the warriors. 3-They do not go into hiding, and fight the U.S. Troops. This could have two possible outcomes(obviously, we win or we lose) These outcomes may not be the same for all of Afghanistan, they may vary according to different tribal regions, and there may be different outcomes than these. But these are the outcomes that I predict, therefore, whatever.
The Italians paid them money and they stopped attacking, that means that if you pay tributes to them that will probably not attack you. But is paying them to stop fighting an effective solution?
The Italians paid them money and they stopped attacking, that means that if you pay tributes to them that will probably not attack you. But is paying them to stop fighting an effective solution?
That's a horrible question.
It would be cheaper to fight them now, instead of paying them off and them gaining in power and influence and strength and numbers and having to fight them later when it's harder anyways.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but genocide is probably banned by some international treaty or other.
The general assumption in war is that if you kill most of the enemy, the enemy loses.
You do realise that hardly any wars in history have been won through the killing of the majority of enemy soldiers. Rather, diminishing the enemy's capacity to make war through taking away their resources. Either way, killing most of the Taliban is almost impossible, unless you seriously are considering ethnic cleansing.
The Taliban found people to fight against when they started and weren't being attacked, but they won't when they're not being attacked?
You should learn your Afghan history. The Taliban actually fought against the corrupt warlords who took power after the Soviets left, with the majority of Afghans behind them. Thius civil war resulted in them taking power. They didn't actually fight anyone after that.
Yes, and we've given ours.
No we haven't. We're still going along the 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' thing.
You do realise that hardly any wars in history have been won through the killing of the majority of enemy soldiers. Rather, diminishing the enemy's capacity to make war through taking away their resources. Either way, killing most of the Taliban is almost impossible, unless you seriously are considering ethnic cleansing.
Yes, however you were saying that if we kill all current members of the Taliban, we don't win. In reality, if we kill a good enough amount of the Taliban, we can contain them.
Thius civil war resulted in them taking power. They didn't actually fight anyone after that.
So, you're saying that even though they tried to overthrow the government before, they won't if we leave them alone?
No we haven't. We're still going along the 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' thing.
Actually, if they turn themselves in they aren't punished and receive compensation. I haven't checked out the exact terms of it, because no one knows if any have gone for it yet.
Recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with being in power. And without the consent of the Afgans it would not be theirs. Consent has been given which makes all the difference.
Not all the Afghan people enjoy the Taliban rule. Sure, it may be better than it was before, but it's far from good.
Also, the point was that they are not rightfully running any region until the rest of the world accepts it. Yes, I know that world recognition doesn't mean anything to those who enjoy Taliban rule, but it is the measure for an official government.
Basically, just because they're in power doesn't mean (A) they didn't unrightfully take that land, nor (B) that life under their rule is the preferred life.
