Greatest military system of all times

Americans have access to automatic weapons, no?
I don't believe it is particularly widespread. I know quite a few people who are avid hunters and gun afficionadoes, but the most 'advanced' non hunting rifle between them all is a rather old hunting shotgun. Despite the impression you may get from the news, most American gun owners don't own automatic weaponry.
A motley collection of hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and some handguns aren't going to hold off an invasion of America by a force that has clearly demonstrated its ability to beat us on our own soil with a naval landing.

I mean Fidel castro invaded Cuba with 82 men on a rickety ship. Only 20 of those men survived and they fled up into the mountains - they still managed to defeat the Cuban army :lol:.
It wasn't as though the Cuban Army was particularly powerful though.:p
It seems to me, if you have a cause people are worth dying for, territory favourable for guerilla warfare and access to some weapons - your extremely hard to defeat.
There is quite a bit of difference between 'extremely hard to defeat' and 'managing to engage the enemy regularly'. The Taliban can do the latter, but I have a hard time believing that an American militant group could do that.
 
The Taliban are doing alright so far.

Essentially, the reason that the Taliban are doing so well is that we've chosen to take them on where just about everything that could possibly be stacked in their favour is stacked in their favour, and everything that could be working against us is working against us. It's hardly surprising that they're taking a very long time about losing.
 
we've chosen to take them on where just about everything that could possibly be stacked in their favour is stacked in their favour, and everything that could be working against us is working against us.

You mean - in Afghanistan. But where would you like to take them on?

Maybe we should invite them to fight in Britain or in Australia, for example? Maybe they will agree? :)

Nice documentary about combats in Aghanistan, by the way:

http://www.moviesdatacenter.com/Movies/Restrepo-2010.html

In an attempt of conquering & holding a small valley of Korengal US forces lost 50 killed only to abandon their positions after several months.

It shows how pointless this war against "ghosts" is.

It's hardly surprising that they're taking a very long time about losing.

I'm not so sure if about losing. So far in history every invader had to leave Afghanistan. Recently Russians.
 
I'm not so sure if about losing. So far in history every invader had to leave Afghanistan. Recently Russians.

I'm not a huge fan of that supposed fact. The area that comprises modern Afghanistan was controlled at different times by realms who controlled different regions of her, and often very successfully at than.
 
The area that comprises modern Afghanistan was controlled at different times by realms who controlled different regions of her

They might have controlled the most civilized regions of Afghanistan, but not the entire country - not the Pashtun territories.

and often very successfully at than.

But at what cost?
 
Maybe we should invite them to fight in Britain or in Australia, for example? Maybe they will agree? :)

Of course they wouldn't, but if for whatever reason they were magically transported there they'd lose very quickly, whereas we can fight wars with all the odds stacked against us - the Falklands, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone in recent times - and still win them!

In an attempt of conquering & holding a small valley of Korengal US forces lost 50 killed only to abandon their positions after several months.

That's not too unusual or neccessarily a bad thing. We maintain FOBs - essentially small fortified camps - where they are useful, where they are needed to maintain security or where they give us good intelligence. If neither of these conditions are being met, we abandon them. This isn't about controlling ground - the parts of Afghanistan most firmly in Afghan hands have almost no NATO presence, and the areas infested with Taliban have FOBs in most villages. The word 'conquering' is misleading and gives a very wrong impression of what NATO and Aghan troops are trying to do.

I'm not so sure if about losing. So far in history every invader had to leave Afghanistan. Recently Russians.

The difference is NATO isn't an invader; it's the Taliban who are fighting against Afghanistan. NATO are helping the government enforce sovereignty over their own country, and it's proceeding at a painfully slow but apparent rate. There's only a few isolated corners of the most dangerous provinces that can truly be said to be under Taliban control, as opposed to almost the entire country at the end of war.

They might have controlled the most civilized regions of Afghanistan, but not the entire country - not the Pashtun territories.

That's mostly because Afghanistan as it exists today has never existed before and does not exist in any logical sense - it's a set of lines drawn on a map by British statesmen in the early 20th century. In general, empires until very recently conquered areas based on geography (for example, 'until the Rhine and the Danube' as the Romans) or ethnic groups, so it's almost always been divided between multiple states.
 
That's mostly because Afghanistan as it exists today has never existed before and does not exist in any logical sense - it's a set of lines drawn on a map by British statesmen in the early 20th century. In general, empires until very recently conquered areas based on geography (for example, 'until the Rhine and the Danube' as the Romans) or ethnic groups, so it's almost always been divided between multiple states.

Uh, that's partially right. However there had been an Afghan proto-state since about 1747, when the Durrani Empire was formed. It covered just about the same areas and included the same ethnic groups as Afghanistan today, plus bits and pieces of what is now Iran and Pakistan at various stages. But previously, the Afghan state(s) was based on tribal connections with a sprinkle of Islam to add legitimacy; later it was centred on the rather fragile institution of the Barakzai Monarchy. So Afghanistan is not a British creation; what is a Western import is a European-style nation-state based on a national identity limited by an arbitrary border.
 
Uh, that's partially right. However there had been an Afghan proto-state since about 1747, when the Durrani Empire was formed. It covered just about the same areas and included the same ethnic groups as Afghanistan today, plus bits and pieces of what is now Iran and Pakistan at various stages. But previously, the Afghan state(s) was based on tribal connections with a sprinkle of Islam to add legitimacy; later it was centred on the rather fragile institution of the Barakzai Monarchy. So Afghanistan is not a British creation; what is a Western import is a European-style nation-state based on a national identity limited by an arbitrary border.

Thanks for that. However, the point stands that it's not a 'proper' country. Even in the times you're pointing out, it has been a confederation of different people rather like Czechoslovakia or Switzerland, and a foreign power making an empire out of the area pre-1747 wouldn't have taken over the entire thing because there wasn't a thing to take over. 1747 is very, very young by country standards, besides; apart from America there are very few countries founded so recently which do not exist along pre-existing ethnic or religous lines - excepting, of course, other rather unstable former colonies.
 
Thanks for that. However, the point stands that it's not a 'proper' country. Even in the times you're pointing out, it has been a confederation of different people rather like Czechoslovakia or Switzerland

Polyethnicity need be such a severe handicap. Switzerland has lasted almost a millennium though it is arguably more ethnically-diverse than, say, Czechoslovakia. What's a proper country, anyway. A country of more than say a few thousand people is bound to consist of a mixture of different peoples with different histories, languages, customs, traditions, beliefs or all of the above. Countries like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia were more obvious than others in this regard because the different peoples in those countries formed large enough groups to form their own countries. But countries like France or Germany today still consists of different peoples, some with rather strong regional identities. The United Kingdom is a country formed out of four countries that hated each other on the common institution of the Monarchy; not so fundamentally different from Afghanistan. Even Japan, one of the world's most ethnically homogenous country, spent most of its history fighting itself, had its last civil war in 1869, and have a Constitution based on Germany's and rewritten by an American occupying force.

a foreign power making an empire out of the area pre-1747 wouldn't have taken over the entire thing because there wasn't a thing to take over.

Historically, dominating empires in the area tended to take over the entire the territory of modern Afghanistan rather than part of it. Afghanistan actually has quite sensible borders, geographically (but not ethnically) speaking: barely-passable deserts to the west, mountains bounding to the north, east and south, and growing empires from the west or north generally stopped in what was the NWFP, since the mountains were a natural barrier.

1747 is very, very young by country standards, besides; apart from America there are very few countries founded so recently which do not exist along pre-existing ethnic or religous lines - excepting, of course, other rather unstable former colonies.

Which is a good point. Then again, some of the newer polyethnic states aren't doing too bad; at least not as badly as Afghanistan. India and Indonesia are the greatest examples; you'd expect them to fall apart fifty years ago. In Africa, Tanzania and Ghana are probably the most well-known examples of polyethnic countries that haven't experienced multiple civil wars.
 
Which is a good point. Then again, some of the newer polyethnic states aren't doing too bad; at least not as badly as Afghanistan. India and Indonesia are the greatest examples; you'd expect them to fall apart fifty years ago. In Africa, Tanzania and Ghana are probably the most well-known examples of polyethnic countries that haven't experienced multiple civil wars.

Indonesia perhaps, but India had long enough under British rule to establish an 'Indian' identity, much like America has an 'American' identity despite being populated by barely any indigenous people.
 
In an attempt of conquering & holding a small valley of Korengal US forces lost 50 killed only to abandon their positions after several months.

That's not too unusual or neccessarily a bad thing. We maintain FOBs - essentially small fortified camps - where they are useful, where they are needed to maintain security or where they give us good intelligence. If neither of these conditions are being met, we abandon them. This isn't about controlling ground

But Korengal Valley is a strategically very important location.

Across that valley Talibans receive weapon and ammo supplies from Pakistan!

The difference is NATO isn't an invader;

Russians claimed the same.

And I bet every previous invader of Aghanistan also claimed that he was not an invader, but "liberator" or someone.

So why should we believe that all of those previous invaders lied, but NATO is telling the truth? Moreover - if more of incidents like that shown in "Restrepo" will happen (i.e. casualties among innocent civilians) - I bet the bulk of Afghan population will start to consider NATO as invaders.

Provided - of course - that they do not consider NATO as invaders already. Which is quite probable.

it's the Taliban who are fighting against Afghanistan.

That's what NATO's propaganda is claiming. Soviet propaganda was claiming the same about Mujahideens.

The Taliban's propaganda is claiming the opposite.

Why is one propaganda better than another propaganda?

In fact both sides - NATO and Talibans - are fighting against Afghanistan. Afghan civilians suffer the most.

NATO are helping the government enforce sovereignty over their own country,

This was not the original target of the invasion of Afghanistan, but it's a propaganda slogan.

Before 11 September 2001 somehow NATO did not consider Afghan government as "not sovereign".

The Western world somehow did not see the need of "enforcing sovereignity" of Afghan government before 11.09.2001.

In general, empires until very recently conquered areas based on geography (for example, 'until the Rhine and the Danube' as the Romans)

Maybe you forgot, but the Romans actually also attempted to conquer areas beyond the Rhine and the Danube. :)

And the Romans did conquer Germania "main" and managed to control it for several years.

But unfortunately for them, it finally ended with the Teutoburg Forest massacre and further 7 years of unsuccessful war.

As the result Romans had to retreat from Germania "main" to areas behind the Rhine.

You simply confuse the cause with the result. Empires conquer what they can - they do not base their plans of conquests on geography. And those empires attempted, but failed to hold areas with hard geography (densely forested Germania in case of Rome; Afghanistan in case of few empires).
 
Top Bottom