Continued as part two:

Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Mugabe is a psychotic and, in this instance, a red herring.
OK, so you don't know about Gukurahundi. Mugabe ended an insurgency by making the population turn against the insurgents out of a justifiable fear for their own lives. Relevant, in that it was a repeat from successful COIN methods of successful empires of the past. But then you say you know all about Roman history yet seem to have missed this simple fact?

The Tamil Tigers are an interesting example but, I have to wonder, how appropriate to a discussion of Afghanistan.
I guess like I'm wondering how car accident rates in the US are appropriate to drug production originating in Afghanistan? (Sorry, couldn't resist that but in so doing lowered myself to your high school debating level.)

Are we likely to the the ANA pushing the Taliban into a pocket and annihilating them? Probably not, and ISAF forces are not likely to do so either since a) they are not the government and b) they can't get access to FATA. The Tigers, you'll note, didn't have a safe haven, while the Taliban do.
You are either trying to be cute or you quite frankly don't have a clue.

You missed the key 'change' at policy level when "Rajapaksa promised his troops that the war would end only with the LTTE’s elimination and Prabhakaran’s capture or death." So the nation aim changed from peace talks to military victory. Now having said that you should be able to follow the dots from there. Oh yes, and the self righteous West is still wailing and gnashing its teeth over the war crimes and human rights abuses but as far as Sri Lanka is concerned the the 26 odd year war is over and they are safe in the lovingly protective arms of China.

So what is the ISAF aim in Afghanistan (the current one that is)? Are they wanting to win (still waiting for your definition of 'win') or are have they admitted defeat and trying to slide out with the minimum of fuss?

As far as Syria is concerned, it appears to be turning into a multi-sided proxy fight. There are potential analogs with Afghanistan, but I would be very careful about them.
You miss the point again (I mean its three strikes and you are out).

But I'll continue for this post. Hint: what did daddy do in 1982? Has that aqnd the support of Russia and China got anything to do with the current approach? Is he handing out soccer balls and pencils or is he intent to crush the insurgency?

So what? The US and the Brits do. Deal with what is rather than what you might wish to be.
So what? You ask 'so what?'

What that means is that the US and the Brits should not get into conflicts they can't win.

I quote Colin Powell from his autobiography ‘My American Journey’, “Many of my generation of Vietnam-era officers vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand.”

Get the idea?

Sigh.
LOL... you poor long suffering dear.

Of course, the Soviets were nothing but Bronze Age barbarians. I have many problems with how ISAF has handled their campaign, but the ability to exploit Western weaknesses has been know for a long time, so I wouldn't give the Taliban more than their due.
You need to give them their due that they have the initiative, they are well funded from local sources (including the US tax-payer) and their use IEDs (and ISAFs inability to effectively counter them) is in reality a war winner.

Politicians listen only to themselves and their political advisers. Their choice to "adopt" the views of academics or military people people is undertaken solely on whether or not those people's ideas match the politicians preconceptions. Any competent student of practical politics knows this.
Obviously. They surround themselves with their coterie and disregard the rest. I say again it is up to the Joint Chiefs to show moral courage and stand up to the politicians when necessary - even at the cost of their careers.

And anyone who knows Byzantine history will agree that his "thoughts" on that are singularly uninformed.
...and you be one of them... lol.

PS: wonderful logical fallacy that, got a name for it?