Originally posted by Oliver North
1) look up asymmetric tactics and try to understand why such vehicles would not only be ineffective for the goals of the cartels, but would make them much easier targets
Originally posted by Oliver North
2) many cartels operate out of the jungles of central and south America... tell me how effective you think tanks and artillery are in a jungle and I'll point you toward Vietnam.
Example: Swat Valley in Pakistan:
Originally posted by Oliver North
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-12a-lanzagranadas-y-lanzacohetesFirst result from a google search for "zetas rpg"
Originally posted by Oliver North
The book Taliban by Ahmed Rashidwhen you read that, we'll talk some more about the Taliban
In addition, I suggest that you read following:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/396-khan.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Taliban-Afghanistan-Mobilization-Future/dp/0312294026
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Taliban forces are adept in the arts of asymmetric warfare.
this is unrelated to anything I was saying. You said narcos don't use tanks, I said they wouldn't be helpful...
so you admit that narcos don't use tanks because they aren't a weapon that would help them at all?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Taliban forces have long history of operating in remote and tough regions including mountainous forests.Example: Swat Valley in Pakistan:
again, totally unrelated to our conversation.
While you are correct, forests do tend to be problematic for tanks and artillery, the argument was never about the terrain of Afghanistan.
The point was, and still is, tanks would be almost useless both tactically and geographically for narcos. They do, however, buy helicopters, which are very effective.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Doesn't makes much difference.
so, just like in the nudity thread, I've proven you wrong, and you say "well, that doesn't matter".
So, you admit that narcos have access to RPGs and heavy weapons? You concede the point, you know, the actual point we were discussing?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, Narcos may not be easy to root out through professional means but Taliban is different ballgame.
unfortunately, there is really no single Taliban to talk about...
the only Taliban that might have been able to go into another nation to eliminate narcos (which is the point of the thread), is the one that conquered Afghanistan in the 90s with tanks, planes, etc (I'm going to call this the State-Taliban). It is almost laughable to think such a force would be able to defeat the narcos when the, literally, most powerful armies that have ever existed, have not been able to.
Mao has a great line about insurgents being invincible so long as the "Fish swim in the ocean". The fish, ie, the narcos, are able to move freely in the ocean, ie, the population, and are therefore impossible to defeat, short of killing absolutely everyone (which the State-Taliban couldn't accomplish). It is similar to Afghanistan in the 80s. Even though the Soviets were willing to use gunships to annihilate civilian populations, the people would not turn on the insurgents, and therefore, the Soviets were destined to lose.
Further evidence of the inability of the State-Taliban to defeat narcos comes from the fact that they didn't defeat the narco-trafficers in the north of the country (though, yes, this would have been symmetric warfare between conventional forces). Additionally, the very reason the Taliban reversed their position on opium, from banning its production to taxing its trade, was specifically to avoid the type of insurgency that we are describing. The capitulated to narcos to prevent the very type of conflict we are describing. Going by history, the State-Taliban would not fight narcos, but would rather try to profit from them. This actually speaks volumes to Mullah Omar's strategic mind, as he knew he would lose Kandahar and likely all of Afghanistan if he tried to fight against the opium trade. However, it is an explicit admission, from the leader of the State-Taliban, that they could not defeat narcos within their own borders, let alone those in a neighbouring state.
The Talibans that arose after America obliterated the conventional State-Taliban army are an entirely different ball game, you are correct. However, my points about 2 forces trying to use asymmetric tactics against one another from earlier in this thread still stands:
Originally posted by Oliver North
neither side has a clear win condition. The drug trade and Islamic radicalism have withstood the most powerful armies for decades, a small guerrilla war between two forces that rely on asymmetric tactics can only result in severe blood letting on either side. However, given that AQ cannot stop the drug trade, and the cartels cannot stop Islamic radicalism, they will keep committing small scale massacres against one another for the foreseeable future.The only win condition I can think of would occur if AQ made the cost of being a cartel so high that there wasn't enough profit to be made from selling drugs, but that seems extremely unrealistic.
The Talibans that you speak so highly of in terms of military prowess do not have the tactical ability to attack another nation. I agree, the narcos wouldn't beat them, but how do you possibly think the Talibans would win? Their tactics are specifically designed to fight asymmetric wars, not to invade and occupy.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I know a lot about Taliban.
we'll have to agree to disagree on this...
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In addition, I suggest that you read following:http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/396-khan.pdf
this has nothing to do with the Taliban and opium...
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Taliban-Afghanistan-Mobilization-Future/dp/0312294026
I couldn't find this book online, but in the Wikipedia page for "Taliban" this book is used twice as a source describing the smuggling of opium from Afghanistan to Pakistan, forming the "golden crescent" of heroin production.
So, just like in the nudity thread, you are actually posting links that support the points I'm making.
Originally posted by Oliver North
this is unrelated to anything I was saying. You said narcos don't use tanks, I said they wouldn't be helpful...so you admit that narcos don't use tanks because they aren't a weapon that would help them at all?
Originally posted by Oliver North
b) no they couldn't, re: the "Northern Alliance"c) within months of capturing Kabul, the Taliban were narcos
For b): You have suggested Northern Alliance as an analogy to consider for survival of Narcos against heavily armed Taliban forces? How so?
For c): Already countered.
Originally posted by Oliver North
again, totally unrelated to our conversation.While you are correct, forests do tend to be problematic for tanks and artillery, the argument was never about the terrain of Afghanistan.
The point was, and still is, tanks would be almost useless both tactically and geographically for narcos. They do, however, buy helicopters, which are very effective.
Originally posted by Oliver North
so, just like in the nudity thread, I've proven you wrong, and you say "well, that doesn't matter".
Originally posted by Oliver North
So, you admit that narcos have access to RPGs and heavy weapons? You concede the point, you know, the actual point we were discussing?
Originally posted by Oliver North
unfortunately, there is really no single Taliban to talk about...the only Taliban that might have been able to go into another nation to eliminate narcos (which is the point of the thread), is the one that conquered Afghanistan in the 90s with tanks, planes, etc (I'm going to call this the State-Taliban).
However, haven't you learned anything from TTP and Haqqani Network? Both of these factions have demonstrated the capability to control people effectively and infiltrate terrain when they wanted to.
Now consider the presented scenario:
If Afghanistan and Mexico were neighboring countries and Al Qaeda crashed planes into their buildings as a retaliation for Narcos selling drugs to their Muslim people, who would win in an all out war?
Since we are assuming that Afghanistan and Mexico are neighbouring countries; it is safe to assume that Taliban factions may have good knowledge about Mexican culture and environment. Most important point is that Taliban factions are made up of very capable combatants and can effectively control people; much better then police and even some professional military forces. This you have failed to realize thus far.
Originally posted by Oliver North
It is almost laughable to think such a force would be able to defeat the narcos when the, literally, most powerful armies that have ever existed, have not been able to.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Mao has a great line about insurgents being invincible so long as the "Fish swim in the ocean". The fish, ie, the narcos, are able to move freely in the ocean, ie, the population, and are therefore impossible to defeat, short of killing absolutely everyone (which the State-Taliban couldn't accomplish). It is similar to Afghanistan in the 80s. Even though the Soviets were willing to use gunships to annihilate civilian populations, the people would not turn on the insurgents, and therefore, the Soviets were destined to lose.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Further evidence of the inability of the State-Taliban to defeat narcos comes from the fact that they didn't defeat the narco-trafficers in the north of the country (though, yes, this would have been symmetric warfare between conventional forces).
Originally posted by Oliver North
Additionally, the very reason the Taliban reversed their position on opium, from banning its production to taxing its trade, was specifically to avoid the type of insurgency that we are describing. The capitulated to narcos to prevent the very type of conflict we are describing. Going by history, the State-Taliban would not fight narcos, but would rather try to profit from them. This actually speaks volumes to Mullah Omar's strategic mind, as he knew he would lose Kandahar and likely all of Afghanistan if he tried to fight against the opium trade. However, it is an explicit admission, from the leader of the State-Taliban, that they could not defeat narcos within their own borders, let alone those in a neighbouring state.
Mullah Omar began crackdown on Narcos in 2000 and it was most effective in modern times. Unfortunately, 9/11 happened and US invaded Afghanistan. Therefore, ouster of Taliban regime led to re-emergence of drug trade in Afghanistan.
I have already cited a good source to confirm my point:
There has been much reported in the popular media about the Taliban government’s enforcement of a ban on opium poppy growing in Afghanistan during 2000 and 2001, and the resumption of growing in 2002 with the overthrow of the regime (Bearak, 2001; Crossette, 2001; McCarthy, 2001; Salopek, 2001; The Economist, 2002).
Please read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28709721/Taliban-crackdown-against-opium-poppy-cultivation-in-Afghanistan
And get your facts straight.
Originally posted by Oliver North
The Talibans that arose after America obliterated the conventional State-Taliban army are an entirely different ball game, you are correct. However, my points about 2 forces trying to use asymmetric tactics against one another from earlier in this thread still stands:The Talibans that you speak so highly of in terms of military prowess do not have the tactical ability to attack another nation. I agree, the narcos wouldn't beat them, but how do you possibly think the Talibans would win? Their tactics are specifically designed to fight asymmetric wars, not to invade and occupy.
Originally posted by Oliver North
we'll have to agree to disagree on this...
Originally posted by Oliver North
this has nothing to do with the Taliban and opium...
Originally posted by Oliver North
I couldn't find this book online, but in the Wikipedia page for "Taliban" this book is used twice as a source describing the smuggling of opium from Afghanistan to Pakistan, forming the "golden crescent" of heroin production.
Originally posted by Oliver North
So, just like in the nudity thread, you are actually posting links that support the points I'm making.
One quote went unanswered in my above response so here it is:
Originally posted by Oliver North
The Talibans that arose after America obliterated the conventional State-Taliban army are an entirely different ball game, you are correct. However, my points about 2 forces trying to use asymmetric tactics against one another from earlier in this thread still stands:The Talibans that you speak so highly of in terms of military prowess do not have the tactical ability to attack another nation. I agree, the narcos wouldn't beat them, but how do you possibly think the Talibans would win? Their tactics are specifically designed to fight asymmetric wars, not to invade and occupy.
However, for the sake of argument; we can consider only Mullah Omar led Taliban faction in this debate.