• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Report on War in Afghanistan Shows Historic Losses, But Hides Death Toll Previously Made Public

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,262
Reaction score
82,620
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U.S. Report on War in Afghanistan Shows Historic Losses, But Hides Death Toll Previously Made Public

By Tom O'Connor
10/31/17

The latest U.S. analysis of Washington's longest-ever military conflict showed insurgents had gained control and influence in more districts in Afghanistan than at any point previously measured by the quarterly report, which, for the first time ever, hid the number of casualties sustained by Afghan troops. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the Congress-mandated oversight authority of the U.S.'s 16-year military intervention in Afghanistan, released its latest quarterly report Tuesday, showing that the Afghan army continued to lose territory to Islamist militant groups such as the Taliban and Islamic State (ISIS) between July 1 and September 30. The U.S.-backed Afghan government reportedly maintains control or influence over 56.8 percent of the country's 401 districts, while insurgents and jihadis control or exert influence over about 13.3 percent. At least 30 percent of the country is now contested. "The Afghan government’s district and population control deteriorated to its lowest level since SIGAR began analyzing district-control data in December 2015 and population-control data in September 2016," the report read.

The report showed that around 3.7 million of 32.5 million Afghans reside in areas under militant control or influence, a 700,000 person increase in the last six months, and that an additional 8.1 million live in contested areas. It did not disclose, however, how many Afghan troops had been killed or injured during a particularly violent period in the lengthy conflict. This year has proven especially deadly for Afghan forces. The last SIGAR report showed that, from January 1 through May 8, 2,531 members of the Afghan army and police force were killed, with an additional 4,238 wounded. In August, President Donald Trump announced his new strategy for the prolonged war he often criticized his predecessors over before running for office himself. He vowed to renounce nation-building and focus on "killing terrorists." He also declared that the government would cut back on transparency over previously public figures such as troop levels. The Pentagon did reveal later that month a count of about 11,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a number significantly higher than the 8,400 cap established by the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

On 21 August 2017, Trump declared to troops at Fort Meyer that "Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on."

It's still early-on, but Trumps ensuing Afghan surge strategy (~4,000) doesn't yet seem to be effectively changing conditions on the ground for the better.
 
Rogue Valley said:
U.S. Report on War in Afghanistan Shows Historic Losses, But Hides Death Toll Previously Made Public



On 21 August 2017, Trump declared to troops at Fort Meyer that "Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on."

It's still early-on, but Trumps ensuing Afghan surge strategy (~4,000) doesn't yet seem to be effectively changing conditions on the ground for the better.
Click to expand...

Uh, well, this reflects previous months/years, and that hasn't really even taken effect yet, so.... yes.


That being said, I'm not terribly hopeful.
 
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for US 2 B in this ****ty war, whatsoever .................

16 years later & we are STILL in Afghannyville; thanks a lot GW Bush, you ****ing POS
 
cuban smokes said:
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for US 2 B in this ****ty war, whatsoever .................

16 years later & we are STILL in Afghannyville; thanks a lot GW Bush, you ****ing POS
Click to expand...

It’s a major smuggling route for everything from babies to nuclear material, plus they are sitting on a buttload of rare earth minerals for your next smart phone. We really have to represent.
 
Rogue Valley said:
It's still early-on, but Trumps ensuing Afghan surge strategy (~4,000) doesn't yet seem to be effectively changing conditions on the ground for the better.
Click to expand...

And it won't. Why? Because nothing will work. The idiot think-tanks and so-called "experts" don't know wtf they are talking about. You can't do for a people what they do not want.
 
chuckiechan said:
It’s a major smuggling route for everything from babies to nuclear material, plus they are sitting on a buttload of rare earth minerals for your next smart phone. We really have to represent.
Click to expand...


yes; I know the GW Bush explanation was all a ruse to placate the dumbass American public

the US has to be there to attempt to enforce the will of the elites & to pilfer whatever is there for the taking; yes, I know how America operates ..........
 
Rogue Valley said:
U.S. Report on War in Afghanistan Shows Historic Losses, But Hides Death Toll Previously Made Public



On 21 August 2017, Trump declared to troops at Fort Meyer that "Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on."

It's still early-on, but Trumps ensuing Afghan surge strategy (~4,000) doesn't yet seem to be effectively changing conditions on the ground for the better.
Click to expand...

As the Bible says, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no.

The GWOT is a hoax of epic proportions, and cannot be made legitimate, cannot be turned into a silk purse.

Except, of course, for those who profit from it, the MIC.
 
Rogue Valley said:
U.S. Report on War in Afghanistan Shows Historic Losses, But Hides Death Toll Previously Made Public



On 21 August 2017, Trump declared to troops at Fort Meyer that "Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on."

It's still early-on, but Trumps ensuing Afghan surge strategy (~4,000) doesn't yet seem to be effectively changing conditions on the ground for the better.
Click to expand...

It's not going to change conditions on the ground in the long term. It will do something in the temporary. Eventually, this is a local problem. The Afghani government and military have used our treasure and blood for sixteen years only to present themselves as too weak to handle their own business. Time to go. They have been given more than enough. If they remain incapable of taking advantage of the opportunity given to them, it's on them. The Iraqi government and military have only recently begun to prove that they are capable and it took us leaving and for IS to smack them across the face to motivate them.
 
Fishking said:
And it won't. Why? Because nothing will work. The idiot think-tanks and so-called "experts" don't know wtf they are talking about. You can't do for a people what they do not want.
Click to expand...

It's not that they don't want. Sixteen years later they have fallen victim to relying too much on others. Because the U.S. military remains, they simply don't feel the need to really step up. The only way they ever will step up is if we leave so that they have to finally take responsibility.
 
MSgt said:
It's not that they don't want. Sixteen years later they have fallen victim to relying too much on others. Because the U.S. military remains, they simply don't feel the need to really step up. The only way they ever will step up is if we leave so that they have to finally take responsibility.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They do not want a society that has much of a form of egalitarianism and fairness. They just want their own warlord in charge so they can benefit. Sure, there are a small few that get it but it's mostly something that's culturally outside of understanding. I don't even think it really has to be. Different people in different countries should be able to run things in their own way in what works for them. The best thing we can hope for is a little bit of stability achieved by whatever warlord comes out on top.
 
Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. The simple wisdom of George Washington
 
Fishking said:
I disagree. They do not want a society that has much of a form of egalitarianism and fairness. They just want their own warlord in charge so they can benefit. Sure, there are a small few that get it but it's mostly something that's culturally outside of understanding. I don't even think it really has to be. Different people in different countries should be able to run things in their own way in what works for them. The best thing we can hope for is a little bit of stability achieved by whatever warlord comes out on top.
Click to expand...

Well, you disagree with good reason. There is a history here where an umbrella government respected the authorities of the provinces (like states) and warlord leadership.

The original intent for Afghanistan was not Western democracy. Ahmad Shah Massoud was a warlord in the north, who was extremely instrumental against the Soviets during the 1980s. The CIA had history with him. In 1996, he absolutely rejected the Taliban's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. So he returned to armed opposition until he eventually fled to bacl to the north. He became the military and political leader of the Northern Alliance (United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan). The Taliban left him and the north largely alone. It's no coincidence that he was assassinated in a suicide bombing on September 9, 2001, two days before 9/11.

Massoud would have led the north against the Taliban and helped to squeeze the Taliban and Al-Qaeda with the U.S. Leadership for the country would have defaulted to him; and he would have employed the governing tactics of the past. But the Taliban, with Al-Qaeda support, shattered that probability. So the U.S. was stuck with a country that needed leadership after disposing of the Taliban government. The world would have just judged and chastised if we inserted a dictator of our choice from there. This ain't the Cold War anymore.

If a warlord is the eventual default for Afghanistan, they will do it. But this is not going to get sorted out until we leave. The elected leaders thus far, Karzai and then Ghani, have not been very good at unifying without the U.S. military's interference with the factions. But the hope is that Afghanistan will choose to return to more of what it did in the past before the Soviets invaded in 1979. The Soviet invasion and ensuing civil war destroyed much of the country's infrastructure and disrupted the normal patterns of the economy. The U.S. had been working with Afghanistan through the Helmand Valley Authority (HVA), which was modeled on the Tennessee Valley Authority since 1952. And this was under an umbrella government that respected the authorities of the provincial warlords.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom