Afghanistan

[ZenGum]

Hiya Bruce ... interesting, some responses.
Being ambushed is not what I had in mind by "finding the enemy". Finding the ones we want at time when we have the advantage is the trick. I also note you describe how hard it is to tell enemy from neutral later on; you seem to refute yourself.

Limited bombing... a long slow admission of pinpricks will piss someone off, especially if they are already disposed to resent you as a foreigner. Do you seriously think the Afghans wouldn't mind having their country (or territory, or area, whatever) bombed or otherwise struck at?

Howdy TW:
The thing that struck me in your post was the goal "to go after" Bin Laden (etc).
Going after them means we are always a few steps behind, playing catch-up as they recruit new suicide fodder.
The only way to defeat the taliban is to cut off their supply of recruits by shutting down their religious schools (Madrassas) and replacing them with reasonably good quality secular schools. But the taliban know this and violently resist modern education, so this approach wont work without extensive (international) security to protect all schools for a generation, and that is about as likely to happen as the run-off election producing an effective and honest government.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Hiya Bruce ... interesting, some responses.
Being ambushed is not what I had in mind by "finding the enemy". Finding the ones we want at time when we have the advantage is the trick. I also note you describe how hard it is to tell enemy from neutral later on; you seem to refute yourself.

Being ambushed is the only way to find the enemy, when they're everywhere, and you can't tell who in hell they are unless they're shooting at you.
You obviously don't understand, this is unlike normal warfare, where you find out where the enemy is based and attack them with an advantageous plan. Insurgency is a very different animal. In Iraq we made no progress until we became the big dog in the neighborhood, we could protect the population, only then they started helping us to ferret out the bad guys. We can't even begin to do that in Afghanistan, we can hardly protect our own.
I suggest you read Mike Yon's dispatches, here and here, of the day to day operations

Limited bombing... a long slow admission of pinpricks will piss someone off, especially if they are already disposed to resent you as a foreigner. Do you seriously think the Afghans wouldn't mind having their country (or territory, or area, whatever) bombed or otherwise struck at?

The only way the Afghans will know there's bombing, is if it's close enough to hear it. There's virtually no media, except in the cities. Most of the population is in isolated pockets, and they're pragmatic.
They can't tell the difference between the current coalition soldiers and the Russians. Many don't know the Russians ever left, and never saw them, only heard about them, when they were there.
They are more concerned with survival, food on the table now, and through the coming brutal winter. They're concerned about their animals and their crops, and the ones that grow opium are concerned about anyone fucking with their income, which equates with winter survival.

Howdy TW:
The thing that struck me in your post was the goal "to go after" Bin Laden (etc).
Going after them means we are always a few steps behind, playing catch-up as they recruit new suicide fodder.
The only way to defeat the taliban is to cut off their supply of recruits by shutting down their religious schools (Madrassas) and replacing them with reasonably good quality secular schools. But the taliban know this and violently resist modern education, so this approach wont work without extensive (international) security to protect all schools for a generation, and that is about as likely to happen as the run-off election producing an effective and honest government.

Schools? We ain't got no schools. We don't need no stinking schools. You're confusing Afghanistan with Pakistan.

[ZenGum]

The election ...

Well, I wasn't expecting a resounding success, but this is a total SNAFU.

Karzai and his cronies rigged the first ballot.
They did it clumsily and eveyone saw it.
The international community leaned on the Afghans until they admitted it was dodgy and they needed another poll.
The taliban made lots of trouble.
Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the run-off. Karzai was declared the winner and will be president.

Despite the fact that the poll was widely acknowledged to be fraudulent. No legitimate government, even more grounds for cynicism about democracy in Afghanistan.
And the taliban (and everyone else) have learned that they can disrupt an election with violence.
Karzai looks like a (successful) crook. Abdullah looks like a sore loser. The taliban have gained prestige and the influence that goes with it. The foreigners look like clumsy fools who can't even support their own puppet properly.

Election : fail.

: shakes head sadly :

I feel sorry for the Afghan people and all the soldiers who have served and suffered and sometimes died there.

[classicman]

The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement — in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it to reporters on Monday, it's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out."

ahhh, well tw will surely be happy with that statement...

[TheMercenary]

God (insert your fav god) Bless those Brits....

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/gre...its-finest.htm

[TheMercenary]

And the larger story, a long read but what great insight to what it is like in day to day ops.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bad-medicine.htm

[TheMercenary]

This was written by Adam Holloway MP. He has some really great ideas.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ima...pedinsofar.pdf

[SamIam]

Update:

Obama will send 30,000 more troops into Afganistan over the next 6 months. This will bring the number of troops in that country to 100,000. Where's the exit strategy?

[regular.joe]

If I understand this correctly, to leave Afghanistan before some kind of country stabilizing victory, would only give fire to and embolden our Fundamental Islamic enemies. When speaking about countries where the people with the most get up and go are the insurgents and U.S. Soldiers, I personally laugh at the term "exit strategy". The Taliban definitely has an entrance strategy, all Americans want is an exit strategy. Hmmm......I wonder who will win this one in the long run?

If we want to hold on to Afghanistan, Iraq, even the Balkans; we better gear up to stay. If we can't stomach that, we better be ready for the consequences of letting those insurgents, trouble makers and Islamists where ever they are listen to us whine and talk about exit strategies. Those guys now understand they will definitely be there longer then we will. So do the people sitting on what ever fence they sit on who live in those countries.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

If I understand this correctly, to leave Afghanistan before some kind of country stabilizing victory, would only give fire to and embolden our Fundamental Islamic enemies. When speaking about countries where the people with the most get up and go are the insurgents and U.S. Soldiers, I personally laugh at the term "exit strategy". The Taliban definitely has an entrance strategy, all Americans want is an exit strategy. Hmmm......I wonder who will win this one in the long run?

I disagree. I think Afghanistan is merely a strategic move for long term goals in the region. If we gave up Afghanistan, we would give up leverage in the area versus China, India, Iran, and Russia. It would be like giving up the knight holding the center board in a chess match. It also wouldn't be to far fetched to suggest that Pakistan is the main goal here.

Terrorism and freedom is just the excuse to go there. There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostra...n_Central_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_%28Pakistan%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPI_pipeline
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Terrorism and freedom is just the excuse to go there.{Pakistan}

There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

How would you know those 2 things?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How would you know those 2 things?

I don't know those two things but I can still analyze a situation and come up with conclusions. It doesn't mean they are right, but what I support. I'm not going to write I think or IMO every time I make a statement.

But here is a basic analysis on the situation.

Facts about this scenario:
1) The US is not a moral state, but one that acts out on its self-interests. Every legitimate nation does this.
2) Shortage of resources will be a problem for the entire world in this century.
3) The US is not self-sustainable and will not be in the next century.
4) Afghanistan is in the middle of a highly strategic location, especially with regards to resources. Central Asia and Balochistan are two places with much economic potential.
5) Historically, Afghanistan is an extremely difficult if not impossible place for foreign occupiers to hold.
6) Current Islamic terrorism is an ideology that feeds on foreign occupation.

While our current method of combating anti-western terrorism does have its strategic benefits, I do not believe it is worth the effort we are putting in to it right now. Although, I believe that resources are going to be a very large problem in the next century and without proper strategic locations, it will be very difficult competing with the upcoming powers in Asia. So, by getting a hold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will have an edge over China, Russia, Iran, and India that we would not have without holding those nations.

If this is true, being upfront about it would have devastating effects on the US. It would basically be saying that we are killing thousands of people to exploit foreign resources while not do anything to be self-sufficient. It may be the best realistic solution according to greater US interests, but many US citizens will not see it that way. So, by making a lesser issue, giving Afghanistan freedoms and ridding of anti-western terrorist groups, a bigger one, it will be less likely to be criticized.


I just want to make it clear that I do not fully reject the possibility that we are in Afghanistan for the reasons given to us by Bush and Obama. I do think they are issues and we are legitimately working towards them but I do not think they are the biggest issue. It would also be a two birds with one stone scenario so its likely both issues are being worked at. I just believe that the resources issue will take priority over the freedom and terrorism issue.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I don't know those two things but I can still analyze a situation and come up with conclusions. It doesn't mean they are right, but what I support. I'm not going to write I think or IMO every time I make a statement.

Ok. I think you have over analyzed it. But thanks for responding.

[classicman]

Good points RG - instead of a detailed plan on how what and how to succeed, all some people want to know is when/how we leave. Rather confusing.
On top of that - How can we say publicly that we'll be out on "x-date" without letting the opposition know that as well.

[glatt]

It's not reasonable to say we will be out on "x date," but it is reasonable to say we will be out once "x goals" are reached.

I haven't heard anyone in authority say what the goals are in either Afghanistan or Iraq.