The Taliban now hold more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001

[avaistheone1]

Source: Military Times

KABUL, Afghanistan — The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground.

The report — and Nicholson's deployment to Afghanistan — come at a time of Taliban resurgence, with the group gaining ground in the southern provinces of the Taliban heartland.

After 90 days in the country, Nicholson has now "completed his assessment and submitted it to his chain of command at the Pentagon," said a U.S.military official in Afghanistan, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

Read more: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

[Aristus]

1. If only we'd had "boots on the ground"...

Oh...wait...

Nevermind...

Longest war in US history...

[PoliticAverse]

2. So the war won't be ending anytime soon then? n/t

[Blandocyte]

3. Yay, Team Bushie!

thanks for opening the Pandora's box o' horrors that eventually gave us ISIS.

[seabeckind]

5. I thought ISIS started in a different place.

I lost my scorecard that shows the team colors.

[cstanleytech]

14. The article is about the Taliban though not ISIS. nt

[Blandocyte]

24. Yes. My reply included ISIS

so that the long term consequences would be considered.

[seabeckind]

4. Run this by me again...

why do we need to "defeat the Taliban"?

How do we define a "win" for this undeclared war that's been going on for 15 years?

Who the f' cares?

Pack our shit and leave. So what?

What the f' is an insurgent? A patriot facing a different way?

[christx30]

7. If we left tomorrow, within a few months

Afghanistan would be right back where it was in 2001. Taliban in charge. Things bad for non-Taliban there, especially women.
The government doesn't have the means or stomach to fight.
Personally, I don't really care, and I'd love for them to come out. But either way, the US doesn't have much to gain at all from being there. People getting killed and $trillions being spent for just about nothing.

So I agree, no real reason for us to be there.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. Here's how it works:

You drop a Democracy drone into a group of people.
Usually a group gathered for a wedding or a funeral, 'cause it is a more "target enriched environment".

Then you send some other people to go count what ever body parts are left.
Any and all parts count as a militant, or an insurgent, or a rebel, belonging to the "bad" side which is Al-Quada, or the Taliban, or
anti-government troops, or ISIS, etc.
then the Pentagon writes a line or 2 about the attack, using one or more of the first parts and one of the group names.

and there you have it. We have to be at war cause there are evidently bad guys, as proven by all the drones we had to fire.

And no, I am not making this up. News groups like the Intercept have written about the military admitting they count all pieces of pulp after a strike as "the enemy", no matter what age, what sex, etc.

Just like troops in Viet Nam used ears for a body count report.

[Archae]

6. I still say we give them a nuke.

Both groups.

And if they wonder why both nukes are ticking...

[Pastiche423]

8. USA! USA! USA!

[ManiacJoe]

9. USA/NATO can win the "war", but

three things need to happen:
- lots of ground troops need to be used
- the polititians need to get out of the way
- the TV cameras need to be turned off

Things would be much easier (but not easy) if the locals cared enough to actually fight for their own lives.

Since the vast majority of the US population does not care enough to actually fight the "war", what is needed is an honest, public admission for the lack of care and an withdrawl of the current troops. Be the world's "policeman" or don't be, but attempting a middle ground is just foolish and not workable.

[seabeckind]

12. The part you can't grasp is that they ARE fighting for their own lives.

The "insurgents" live there. It's their country and they have their own ideas how they want it to be.

Not what we think it ought to be.

You remember that old Red Dawn movie?

Just what role do you think the USA is playing if we switch the locale?

The "vast majority" of the US population disagrees with you -- obviously.

[ManiacJoe]

15. I understand what you are saying.

You just have the wrong "they".
The insurgents are fighting. The insurgents are a small minority of the population.
"They", the bulk of the population, those benefiting from peace and wanting peace, are not fighting against the insurgents when they should be.

The role that the USA is playing in Afghanistan has no presence in the movie "Red Dawn".

If by "disagrees with me" you mean "is far more apathetic than me", then you are correct about the vast majority.

[seabeckind]

16. You keep confusing opposition with apathy.

That the only reason someone would disagree with you is that they are lazy or stupid.

You don't understand what I am saying.

[ManiacJoe]

17. I would love to see it as you do.

Unfortunately, the masses in my area have only apathy. Actual opposition would be wonderful.

[LanternWaste]

18. What is the precise definition of "winning" in the particular context of Afghanistan?

What is the precise definition of victory in the particular context of Afghanistan?

[ManiacJoe]

20. Winning:

Crushing the Taliban and any other insurgents down to the point where they decide to peacefully participate in the democratic government. If this means reducing the insurgent population to zero, so be it as that would be their bad choice.

[glennward]

11. We should leave Afghan to the Afghanis. Didn't we learn anything from history?

That oil pipe territory is not worth it now that there is a glut of oil world wide.

[seabeckind]

13. Oh WE learned quite well.

Unfortunately WE have different goals than the "leaders" who do this shit.

Just last week we heard Obama is going to escalate Afghanistan.

The one who is on OUR side.

[jzodda]

19. Time to make peace

with the Taliban and get the hell out of Dodge.

Afghanistan is a death trap and has been a death trap for foreign armies for centuries.

Fact is there is no nation building to complete there as they will not anytime soon resemble a western democracy.

I feel bad for the women of that country who have to live under violent religious repression but we can't fix every problem in the world.

[ManiacJoe]

21. The Taliban don't want peace.

[ManiacJoe]

22. A tactics change gets the Taliban more ground with less fighting.

Old tactics: straight up gun fight with those who oppose them.

New tactics: Surround and blockage a village, starve out the people until they leave or die; claim the now empty village.
Unfortunately this tactic is working very well.

[Octafish]

23. We could have avoided the whole war...

...if Bush had taken up Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden to a "neutral country." That could be a NATO member.

Obama, FWIW, kept the charade going:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7133118