• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

I did after I posted. I'm confused is he for real or is he some kind of satirical internet character thought up by someone with an odd sense of humor either way he amuses me slightly lol.
recceguy said:
I think people might want to google the author.

Just sayin' :dunno:

Oh, I did, hence the reason why I asked my question.        ;D
I've actually used this in Starcraft 2.  My buddy and I play against the Protoss and Zerg on "very hard".

We section off a quarter or half of the map with bunkers filled with marines. Behind the bunkers we put siege tanks their stationary mode and have groups of jets for a quick reaction force. Once we have our defensive line, including anti-air turrets, set and QRF patrolling we proceed to strip mine our half of the map. 

While conducting our mining operations we send out small teams of spec ops assassins to disrupt the enemy with tactical nukes or load up a couple drop ships and send in guys behind enemy lines to kick ass.

Clearly, if the U.S. dumps Obama and Romney and votes in Condi, she'll ensure that Afghan gunners can see well and thus seal off the Af-Pak border!
The candidates have been selected. Unless Condi forms a 3d party she isnt going to be President.I am not sure if she wants the job to begin with.
This thread is like driving on the 401 and slowing down to see an accident in the opposite lanes, horrible and fascinating at the same time.

The highway idea is really an adaptation of the blockhouse defense the British developed in the Boer War to protect the railways and lines of communications, so as long as an army has 10,000 men to spare this is quite doable in the abstract.

Of course, like ERC says, what exactly do we want to do in Afghanistan now that would justify that level of expenditures (or any level of expenditure, for that matter)? From a military perspective, we have essentially moved the war to the south of Afghanistan and the Frontier provinces of Pakistan, leaving the Panjshir valley and other areas formerly controlled by the Norther Alliance relatively clear and peaceful. From a political perspective, there is a sort of functioning national government with very shaky institutions that are plagued by corruption and inefficiency.

A stable Afghanistan is something that should be desired, considering that it is the traditional land route between China, India, Russia and Iran/the Middle East. As a stable polity it can act as a circuit breaker or damper between unstable regions, while as an unstable region it allows the spread of crime, radicalism and instabiklity in general between these various regions.

How to get there is going to be a problem that will plague politicians for at least a generation to come (especially considering there are powerful forces who wish to undo the limited gains that were made and who want a conduit for crime, radicalsim and instability). From a geographic perspective, the nations that surround Afghanistan have the most to gain or lose, so they should be the ones stepping in to provide help and resources. Since several nations have competing agendas, Afghanistan will probably become a pawn in a series of "Great Games" between multiple sets of players.
Oops! Forgot to click "Notify" myself of replies here. Sorry for the delay in replying to your replies folks. Coming right up.

GnyHwy said:
I don't even know where to start, if I chose to attempt to digest this.  You're all over the place, spanning from Ptes to Presidents.  If you want to discuss stuff then fine, but smaller chunks would be much better.

I suspect if people take the time to digest it, the fact that you attempted to cover so much, that the dogpiles will be coming from all angles.

Have fun!
Thanks. I intend to reply to other people's small-chunk reply questions/points but I am presenting a 4-point plan and strategy for victory over the Taliban, Al Qaeda, jihadi terrorism generally and each of the 4 points of the plan matters.

It's like when any leg of a chair is missing the chair is not stable, so each of the 4-points in my plan has strategic significance.

I wouldn't want people to read a topic I had posted with only one point of my plan in it and think I am the strategist's equivalent of a one-club golfer, or that I am claiming that there's one silver bullet solution to this.


The man is a loon, the sooner this is locked down and he is banned the better.


tomahawk6 said:
Interesting post Peter. You have given this topic alot of thought.
Thank you.

tomahawk6 said:
The one area that is paramount for success in Afghanistan but not addressed is the lack of political will to do what is necessary.
I would liken our political will in Afghanistan to the fighting will of a bull in a bull-fighting contest.


The bull initially lacks no fighting will to charge at the matedor's cape but the cape is not the bull's real enemy but the bull lacks the strategic vision to understand the true nature of the fight.

tomahawk6 said:
Second the US and its allies are tired,worn out.
I know. Treasure spent and precious lives lost.

tomahawk6 said:
Its time to pull back and rethink our approach to the GWOT.
Rethinking is good, if is it strategic rethinking and not merely a change from a decision to fight to a decision to surrender. Pulling back can be good, if it is done in good order. Imagine the fate of a chess game in which one player only ever moved his pieces forwards. Going forwards all the time is only for pawns and we are not pawns.

I can hear the political leaders' intention to pull back. I doubt that the pull back will leave any better order than did the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. I see precious little sign of strategic rethinking.

Instead by far the most common tendency on political and military forums is to ban me for daring to post rethinking-type posts. Oh it is never quite expressed in that way - instead moderators say "spammer", "nutter" or the like as I am banned. Strategic rethinking is being ruled-out by most people.

tomahawk6 said:
In a year or so the US and our allies will leave Afghanistan to its own internal divisions.
The divisions are not solely their own. The Taliban is a proxy force for those with a jihadi agenda - the Pakistani ISI, the Saudis, the Iranians etc.

tomahawk6 said:
We will still be able to reach out and kill our enemies as needed.
No time like the present. Points 1 to 3 of the plan can be started now.

tomahawk6 said:
The key to Afghanistan is Pakistan.
Yet if we pay Pakistan to borrow the key to Afghanistan they will give us the key that doesn't fit the door but sets off a bomb behind the door. If we wish Pakistan to give us the real key to Afghanistan we will have to use the stick against the key holders - the Pakistani ISI.

tomahawk6 said:
The radicalization of Pakistan will continue to be a major problem that we wont be able to solve.
My plan can solve the radicalisation of Pakistan problem. See points 1, 2 & 3 of my plan.

tomahawk6 said:
However the Indians will have to look to their own self interest.No doubt we will give them the go ahead when the time comes.
India did not stop 9/11 and if we leave it to India they won't stop the next attack in our homelands. We must solve this ourselves.
Towards_the_gap said:

The man is a loon, the sooner this is locked down and he is banned the better.


Wow.  That's all I can say.  :facepalm:

I second the motion. 
Nerf herder said:
So, have you presented this to anyone of any significance in England? If so, what did they say?
England is like Scotland where I stay and perhaps even like Canada where the most significant person is the head of state, the Queen and the other significant people have significance because of their loyal relationship to the crown and to the kingdom.

I am a republican so I don't present my ideas in such a way as to appeal to royalists. Therefore if a royalist hates my republicanism, hates my plan and hates me, wants me banned, I am content that I have made my republicanism clear enough to get right up their royalist noses.

We can lose this war by following royalists of significance or we can win this war with republican intelligence.

I have posted my ideas in internet forums where I am not banned. You can search the internet yourself to find out how other people have replied.
Dude, I don't think your problem is your political views, I think most people just object to you and how you come across to them...Google "Cluster B Personality Disorders and Traits", you may see yourself in the imagery.  I'd pigeon hole you somewhere between the Narcicisstic and Borderline types.

E.R. Campbell said:
What is the AIM, Mr. Dow? What are we trying to do should we be doing ... and why?
I would summarize our aims in Afghanistan as arising after the 9/11 attacks on the USA by Al Qaeda terrorists, we, the US and its allies, decided to confront, wage war on, regime-change and generally "deal with" the problem of state sponsors of terrorism and the first state targeted was the Taliban state in Afghanistan. The aim was no state in Afghanistan sponsoring terrorism against us.

E.R. Campbell said:
I think I (and most Western governments) understood the AIM in 2001/02; I'm even fairly sure I could fathom the aim five years latere, circa 2006/07; now I'm pretty sure I cannot grasp our governemnts' aims ... nor yours.
The governments' subsequent aims were to establish a friendly state in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban, a state we would not have to worry about sponsoring terrorism. Many politicians and generals following them kind of hoped that Afghanistan was a stand alone problem and aimed to sort that out on its own but our attempts to establish a secure state in Afghanistan have been sabotaged by an insurgency, mostly operating out of Pakistan. So perhaps the governments' aims are much the same and limited to Afghanistan though they now see a Pakistan connection to the insurgency more clearly they have not quite got to grips with what to do about Pakistan as yet.

What intelligence reports have been pointing to is that by no means was the Taliban state of Afghanistan the only state sponsor of Al Qaeda terrorism. Reports are that the insurgency terrorism of the Taliban is being sponsored by other state sponsors of terrorism.

My aims as a person very much alert to intelligence matters is to confront, wage-war on, regime-change and generally "deal with" the problem of all other state sponsors of terrorism against us and my aims for Afghanistan are to target the states who are sponsoring the Taliban terrorism and insurgency in Afghanistan.

E.R. Campbell said:
So I ask again: what do you want us to do and why should we do it? You never get near that absolutely fundamental question, and without answering it I'm afraid that yoiur thesis is meaningless.
I have explained my aims. What I want people to do is to read my 4-point plan and strategy posted here and to ask any questions about bits of it they don't understand or want more details about. Also if I am banned from this forum, or if the topic is locked, I want you to kick up a fuss to try to get me reinstated and the topic opened up again.

Peter Dow said:
My aims as a person very much alert to intelligence matters is to confront,

Sorry.  Would you rather change "intelligence matters" to "information"?  I really don't think that you are privy to actual "intelligence".  As for "information", there is a lot of it out there, not all of it accurate.
glock17 said:
I'm sorry, did you say we should nuke pakistan if needs be ?
What I said is that we are the friends of the people of Pakistan and I intend that we prove that. This is a delicate matter so I will quote myself more clearly than is usual.

Peter Dow said:
The Pakistan government and military has complained about drone strikes in parts of Pakistan but Pakistan has not gone to war with us about it, thankfully.

Hopefully, the Pakistanis will not want to contest air superiority with their military but if they do decide to fight to resist our air-superiority where we need it to bomb the Taliban then we must be prepared to take out all nearby Pakistani ground to air missile batteries and any air fighters they send against us to contest air superiority.

If the Pakistanis decide to fight us over control of Pakistan's air space then of course there is a risk this could escalate to all-out war if the Pakistanis really want to make a casus belli out of the sovereignty issue and the matter of us requiring to destroy the Taliban so possibly we should make it clear to the Pakistanis that the US President or the NATO supreme commander have the option to use nuclear weapons against Pakistani military bases anywhere in Pakistan if that was necessary to win an all-out war with Pakistan.

That's not our aim to escalate to an all-out war with Pakistan here but Pakistan should be careful not to escalate the situation from one where we need to go after the Taliban only into one where the official Pakistan military gets dragged into a war with us unnecessarily.

This risk of having to fight and win an all-out war with Pakistan is a lesser risk than failing to defeat the Taliban, withdrawing from Pakistan having achieved little to secure Afghanistan and thereby giving encouragement to Jihadis the world over to commit more acts of terrorism and war elsewhere in the world including in our homelands. So Pakistan should not force us to make that choice of two risky options because their defeat is preferable to our own defeat in our opinion.

Pakistan should avoid war with the West by stepping back and allowing us to destroy the Taliban in Pakistan because it is the Taliban and the Jihadis who are the true enemies of the Pakistani and Afghan people. We are the friends of the people of Pakistan and we will prove that by defeating their and our enemy, the Taliban and associated Jihadis.

Hopefully the Pakistanis will back off and let us bomb the Taliban without threat from Pakistan's air defences. We should tell Pakistan that we are doing them a favour which they will thank us for in the long run though we appreciate the embarrassment for them in the short term

So that could be tactical nukes against Pakistani military bases as a military option on NATO's table, (NATO acting through the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and possibly the US President acting alone). I am saying we should not take that option off our commander in chief's table when considering our options if we are faced with the threat of an all-out war with the Pakistani military, if they threaten such.

I have not suggested the use of strategic nuclear weapons against Pakistani cities as I think it pretty much inconceivable that we'd ever need to use that tool against Pakistan.

I think the chances are excellent that it won't come to that. The Taliban have attacked the Pakistani military and the Pakistani police on many occasions so the Pakistani military I believe have no wish to go to war with NATO to defend the Taliban.

This is purely a "what if" scenario that we are as well considering while we are at it.

glock17 said:
Wow, won't that piss off the neighbors a wee bit ?
That is an understatement if ever there was one. It would be a terrible thing for everyone in the world if it came to that but I really don't think it will.
Guys, I don't know why you are humoring this wacko, but if that's what floats your boat..... have at it.... ::)
Stymiest said:
Comprehensive Bombing Campaign
I didn't and wouldn't use the word "Comprehensive". I say bomb only the enemy. Don't bomb anyone else.

Stymiest said:
- I think the US already tried that in one of their other wars *cough* Vietnam *cough* and we all know how that turned out.
Yes the US did try bombing the enemy in Vietnam but there is more to my 4-point plan than a bombing campaign. This is why I insist that my 4-point plan be considered as a whole and no one point be singled out and paraded as if I was presenting that point as the entire strategy.

As for bombing itself, the military science has evolved so that drone attacks and GPS guided missile and gravity bombs are very much more accurate than was the case in the Vietnam war. Do I have to explain that in an Air Force forum?

Stymiest said:
Short of launching a full scale invasion of the Pakistani Tribal Areas
I don't even support a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan if by that you mean controlling the entire country of Afghanistan including every route through the mountains.

I think we ought never to have attempted to control the Afghanistan / Pakistan border by stationing isolated outposts along the border. To my mind it is more costly than it is worth. I would have and still advocate rationalising our defences along our critical supply lines.

So I would never support our forces going into the Pakistani mountains in such a vague way to try to hold down the entire area.

The only option for ground invasion into Pakistan which I would even consider (and I am not keen hence I have not mentioned this explicitly in the plan) would be to establish a secure supply route from Afghanistan through Pakistan to a port on the Pakistan coast.

The way the Taliban is defeated is by points 1, 2 and 3 of the plan, not by invading tribal areas on the ground. Once we have used those points of the plan the Pakistani military will be able to assert control no problem in those areas. They won't need us on the ground.

Stymiest said:
the Taliban aren't going away anytime soon.
It depends on how soon we start implementing a strategic plan to defeat the Taliban, such as the 4-pont plan I have presented here.

Stymiest said:
I think what some of the others brought up is the key question that has never been answered?  What is the Aim of the mission?  What are we trying to achieve?  Like some said, we knew it 2001/2002; however, today I don't really know what our Aim is.
I answered that point in my Reply #33.
Nuking Pakistan will only inflame the region.Gasoline on a fire if you will. All we need do with regard to Pakistan is to stop giving them money and weapons. Increase our support for India. In any event the die is cast in Afghanistan. The Afghans have a choice do nothing and come under the yoke of the taliban - again or they can fight them. Mr Dow doesnt deserve to be banned.While many here dont agree with his thesis, it has sparked debate which is a good thing,I think.
bobbocool said:
Very interesting read
Thank you.

bobbocool said:
but here on planet Earth it would most likely be logistically and politically impossible considering the bombing of a sovereign state not involved in the war
Two points

[list type=decimal]
[*]- democrats believe the people should be sovereign, not the state.

[*]- at least one bit of the Pakistani state - military intelligence - the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence - is indeed involved in the war by sponsoring the Taliban.[/list]

You really ought to watch this BBC TV programme.

This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan.

VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours)

(Bigger text for the link to YouTube this time because seemingly some have not seen this.)

bobbocool said:
as well as turning hundreds of miles of highway spanning two countries into "inside the wire".
Why say you "two countries"? Do you mean the other country to be Pakistan? There are other options for supply into Afghanistan by road other than via Pakistan, via the Northern Distribution Network.


So if we supply from the north through friendly countries then there is no requirement for us to consider the kind of "inside the wire" security or fortress highway in a country other than Afghanistan. This is also true when we supply via air into Afghanistan.

It is indeed possible and it is also wise to secure a supply route through a war zone or bandit country.

Rather it is not easy nor possible for ever to sustain the continual stream of casualties caused to our forces killed by mines, road-side bombs or ambush attacks while supplying along insecure roads.