War in Afghanistan

The endgame is: Stay as long as it takes to get that huge oil pipeline built, then leave with some contractors staying behind guarding the thing.

Obama seems to be "re_imagining" the Endgame as "Kill Osama and get out"

In the election campaign and until recently, his position was "let's Nation Build so Al Queda will never come back here again.

Yeah they keep moving the goal posts until even the most patient audience forgot what game they were originally attending.

Instead of all this BS political maneuvering, they should start a serious discussion wether modern military strategy works at all in these giant urban zones like Bagdad or Kabul.
In my opinion, if you don't want to go in guns and bombs blazing its a ridiculous goal to try to pacify a region with millions o people with just a fraction of soldiers. It doesn't work. Not in the slightest.
It didn't work in Mogadischu, not in Bagdad and not in Kabul.

But you guys arent losing the Afghanistan War in urban zones. Whats breaking your neck in the end, apparently, is the same that has happened to every single damn attempt in the history of the country to invade, occupy and control it: The country is just a nightmare to navigate, its riddled with caves, holes and natural hideouts, and its populace is hardy, relatively uncooperative and most importantly incredibly divided into small tribes, whose politics a non-native will likely never understand.

Every so often, apparently, somebody in the history of mankind thought that now its time to take Afghanistan. They all think that with their current military technology, their numbers or whatever new idea they come up with, they can somehow control this maze of canyons, caves and rugged mountains, AND fight a war against half the populace all over again.

This is not a war you can win with technology or by throwing people at it. Actually, at no point do I believe it was actually possible to "win" this war. But now Obama has the shit sandwich of having to get out of there, graciously, without making matters worse than before. The Bush administration did a great job linking the country to certain political and religious movements, when that connection has always been a tenuos one at best.
Obama has to somehow get people to realize that Afghanistan isnt the enemy, that not half the populace has "Occupation:Terrorist" written in their passport, and that no matter how hard you stomp down on them, you are just going to lose more people.

Kill Osama and get out is as much an illusion as everything else at this point. We, as in all the countries fighting that conflict, had lost the day we went in thinking somehow this time its all gonna be different.

Well said.

If Obama could just declare a clear goal that the American public could get behind, and that could be as simple as keeping a minor presence to combat utter lawlessness in regards to the drug trade and terrorism, people may get behind it if it's in the country's/people's best interest. Personally, I don't think the answer is more troops (ask LBJ how that turned out) but the current state of the "war" is unacceptable. Why we're there either has to be clearly defined, or we should begin to withdraw. Our dudes and ladies have suffered enough over there on behalf of politics.

If we can't get Iran, China, Russia, India, and Pakistan to get involved with this with the US to protect their own interests in the region, All of these countries would have urgent issues with a resurgent Taliban and/or Al-Qaida, so they need to put some skin into dealing with this issue.

Failing that, I say we find the best way to get out and quarantine the place.

Every time some guy puts up monkey bars for a new terrorist training camp, we let him stock it with new recruits and fiery new commanders.

Then take it out with a Predator.

It's the only way to be sure.

Well said indeed. I heard some analyst sataing: well, Aleander The Great conquered Afghanistan, so the US can do it too.

What the idiot didn't say is that after Alexander altered his forces to fight gerrila warfare, fought for 3 years, butchered a lot of civilians and enemy tribes. He "won". How? He bought the allegiances of the tribes. That's how.

Money.

There is only one way to win in Afghanistan. You pick a few favorites at random, you commit genocide against everyone else and you give their land and property to your "allies". A more extreme version of Alexander's eventual strategy in Afghanistan which only managed to pacify the area for a few years.

Since western democracies are, as they should be, fundamentally opposed to such actions Afghanistan is unwinnable.

(Damn me for not refreshing before posting.)

There was never a plan to "win" in afganistan from day one, why should we start now? The decision to go into Afganistan, and Iraq for that matter, were both made for short term political gain. Mission Accomplished.

Retcon all you want. there is no chance for a successful endgame here whatsoever.

We should definitely purchase the opium crops rather than destroy them. Convert as much as necessary to morphine to stop the shortage and stockpile or destroy the remainder. It'll probably cost less then the current occupation, it would endear us to the opium farmers, and it would remove a source of financing for the Taliban.

A blogger says it all better here.

I'm still a proponent for nation building. If you're going to invade a country and drop bombs on it for eight years, the least you can do is leave it in half-working condition for the poor bastards' trouble, as we did with the Marshall Plan. Leaving the oppressed regular people of Afghanistan in worse shape than we did the fucking Nazis is plain wrong. There should be more troops, but in addition to Americans we need a shit-ton of Muslim troops over there. Jordanians, Turks, Egyptians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, you name it. I think working hand-in-hand with a few allied Middle Eastern nations could drastically improve relations in the region in general and with the Afghan populace.

But secondly and more importantly, this would only work if for every one soldier there are three Peace Corp volunteers, diplomatic specialists, hardy and hard-working Ugly Americans in the spirit of the 1958 novel, basically people whose only job is to improve quality of life, agriculture, roads, medicine, education, etc. Obviously they'd be in incredibly risky conditions but that's what's necessary to get the job done. Basically we need to put Greg Mortenson in charge of a state department army and give him whatever the fuck he wants.

This can't happen. We'd have to be pragmatic and logical in order to try it instead of dogmatic "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" idiots.

The reason we will lose is because there is no set plan. The troops there have no clue what the ultimate goal is supposed to be or any idea when we are supposed to get there.

Shh! You guys! Stop badmouthing Alexander the Great! You'll make Princess Kate cry!

Concentrate on building up the Afghan army and police force in Kandahar to support the Afghan government's ability to control that area. Kandahar is the heart of the Taliban and if the Afghan government is able to control it by themselves, foreign troops can leave.

The stability of Afghanistan and it's three other largest cities, Kabul, Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif, will only be threatened if Kandahar falls under Taliban control. Most of the Taliban supporters will fade away when foreign troops leave as long as the government can control those four cities.

We need to GTFO of Afghanistan. We need to negotiate with the Taliban, give aid for schools and hospitals and creating jobs and alternatives to heroin through the state dept. and pull all troops out now. That's my opinion. I really hope Obama doesn't get cornered into sending more bodies into this death pit.

So true. That quote nails it so succinctly and poignantly.

Thom Hartmann brought this book to my attention: Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. It's about Mortensen's mission to build schools in remote, poverty-stricken towns in Afghanistan. His efforts have evidently led to those communities kicking the Taliban out.

That argument is simply far too sensible to be put to the American people by those with the power to enact it.

And its not really true. There are a lot of different interests working together to wage war. Some are profit-oriented, some political, some fanatic, and some all three. If the politicians, the rich elite and a lot of loud zealots of any given country form up behind a common cause, I dont think much would stop them anywhere on the world.

Power, Money, Zeal, just too potent a combo.

We are still all going to lose, yet again, in Afghanistan, and history will repeat itself. More conflict, more instability, and the "graveyard of empires" will perhaps have another tombstone in it. At this point, any military solution is pretty much doomed to fail as I grasp it.

We do both. Aid workers and schools are targeted by extremists in Afghanistan as much as soldiers. Pakistan is one of the most anti-american countries in the world even after the immense amount of aid we sent them after their devasting earthquakes just four years ago.

Strangely, if you give someone a loaf of bread and then shoot them, it doesn't seem to balance out in terms of people's attitude remaining neutral. Mostly they focus on the "shooting you" part. I think that's why Bowman said "instead of" and not "as well as".

Meanwhile, in Iraq...

We have to get out of these places. C'mon, Obama.

We build schools for the Afghans civilians and try to shoot the extremists who burn the schools and throw acid in the faces of girls who try to attend. Balance that out.

And when you can't find the extremists you bomb the schools anyway. Because in the end, it's more work for the USA! USA! USA!

Seriously, you just won't ever get it, do you? These guys will hate your guts because even if you kill all the talibans, which you can't, you'll have so many collateral casualties that it's was pointless from the day you started.

EDIT: Quite the grammatical error there....

My problem with Noahs thesis lies rather in the very narrow determination of what constitutes success.

In the big picture the situation itself in Afghanistan does not take forefront to succeed in this war. Looking at the detoriating situation in Pakistan, the rise of Al Quadia and Taliban in Waziristan and the utter lack of any coherent strategy for the whole reason invalidate more than any shouting match about USA! vs. building schools.
And the West once again made a great case of its own hypocracy when it comes to the "elections" in Afghanistan. We cheer for Karzai, because he is our bastard to allude to Kissinger, despite massive election fraud that puts the one in Iran to shame. I haven´t heard anybody stepping up to this betrayal like everyone felt called upon a year ago when shit hit the fan in Iran.

Well, cynical as that may be, one could argue that if these wars provide ample opportunity for success for many US companies, its still accomplishing SOMETHING, that being to create work which the US needs badly right now.

Obviously at a hefty cost.

A friend of mine who emigrated from Afghanistan about a year after 9/11 and moved here with his whole family often talks and analyzes the current situation.

Right now, he considers the main problem that somehow, the West, with the USA in particular, seem to really believe that the people of Afghanistan want their democracy, their peace, and the taliban gone.
The problem is, these people are not stupid. They do know damn well, and from just recent experience too, that once its "Mission Accomplished", the troops, the protection, the attention of the West is gone overnight, but the Warlords are still there, the fundamentalists are still there, the tribal differences are still there.
Whoever collaborates with the West right now will within a decade have to watch their backs again for the wrath of the guys currently chased out of power is sure to return.

I suppose if you look at it from that angle, from the perspective of someone intending to live out another 3 or 4 decades of normal life in Afghanistan, there really is no way for the US invasion to ever really look like a good idea. Sure, it was bad before, but its going to be worse afterwards.

I think there hasn't been the big outrage because Karzai allowed an international investigation into the elections which is forcing a run-off election. It's hard to be too angry when the problem is actually trying to be solved. Where is the hypocrisy? It was the US and the West pushing Karzi to accept the UN investigation and play fair.

It is the complete opposite situation in Iran where police and militias beat, shot, and arrested those trying to get another election. If Iran had allowed an investigation like Afghanistan, there would be cheering and Green flags waving in the streets of Iran as the protesters celebrated. Instead, they are in jail or staying quiet out of fear.

According to today's New York Times article, U.S. to Protect Populous Afghan Areas, Officials Say , the strategy I mentioned earlier in the thread is looking like the one that will be followed.

That is why we can't finish the mission until the Afghan government is strong enough to govern their own cities. You right that it would be stupid for Afghans to stand up to extremists if the people who are trying to help, abandon them so easily when the going gets tough.

I have a problem with the opinion of a person who flees to a democracy and then "claims" his countryman back home might not want the democracy that he desires. Sounds fishy to me, especially since poll after poll in Afghanistan has stated they don't want the Taliban back in power.

His point is they do not desire the democracy the West is offering them, realistically, at this point. I bet a lot would like the theoretical principle of democracy just fine.

The democracy we are offerring them is just an idea, and it isnt very warlord-proof at all. Do you know how many democracies on this world do not work? How much corruption, how much disinterest or outright abuse? I would guess you have a rough idea actually, since this forum is usually filled with people knowledgable about such things.
Now, how many of the "imposed" democracies, of countries "led to" democracy by the west, work. How many of these are able to stay in charge by democracy instead of a show of force and a carefully manipulated system.
And really, even with a strong afghan government, take a look at the map: One freshly elected government is supposed to stand up THAT amount of surrounding anti-democratic influence?

The true storm will start AFTER they get their government. What Afghanistan and its fledgling democracy, or rather, attempts at democracy, are enduring now is going to pale to the constant pressure and onslaught in that part of the world once the handholding is over, and it has to stand on its own feet.

Its easy to want democracy, especially if a couple guys in high-tech military gear, a big fucking tank and a BigMac in their pocket are asking you on a street in a city not recently bombarded. Its an entirely different thing to then defend that way of life for at least a few decades and maintain it before outward aggression and attempts at undermining it cool down.

You can ask me any day of the week whether I think we should kill all evil warlords in Africa. I ll say yes, I ll say I am all for it, but I am never going to get my gear, mount up and shoot the bastards myself.

Likewise with democracy in Afghanistan, I believe.

Alexander did not just buy them. He also married the daughter of the most powerful warlord, and promised to make that warlord de facto ruler of Afghanistan in exchange for Alexander holding title of king and his troops and supplies having freedom of movement. So, for us to win we'd need Obama to marry into the Taliban... so, yeah, victory is impossible.

Well, they were being pretty accurate when it comes to his Afgan campaign. I did correct or clarify a few points made by the esteemed Martin Savage though

This book is fantastic for getting a feel of what Alexander III of Macedon's Afghan war was like. And why we should get out as fast as we can:

No you didn't you ignorant buffoon. First and foremost, he bought them. It's money that worked. The title was a bonus.

And shame on you for dragging the most excellent Pressfield into this.

Martin, I did just refered to you as "the esteemed Martin Savage" in my previous post. In exchange, you might want to retract your ignorant buffoon remark. You may not know, but Alexander lore is something I'm a bit of an expert in. I've even read the entire Romance of Alexander* so if you want info on Sekander's undersea adventures with mermaids, I'm your girl. On that note, he bought peace by marrying Roxana, daughter of the warlord Oxyartes. Plenty of money changed hands, but it was the marriage that formed the basis for the deal struck. The money that he paid the Afghans off with was her dowry.

*An ancient account of murky origins that chronicles Alexanders adventures. It's also completely fucking looney. He fights monsters and stuff and at one point learns how to fly.

PS: Martin, I also am not "dragging" Pressfield into anything. He wrote a rather spectacular work of historical fiction, and I don't think it's out of place to suggest it as reading for anyone interested in this topic.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...74&jumival=460

This is the best speech on the subject of the American Empire aka new Rome, reasons for war in Iraq and Afghanistan and fiscal debt I've ever heard.
This man speaks pure truth...he was former chief of staff for Colin Powell.
Too bad you can only find this on therealnews, not the real news...

I only managed to get through the first part so far, going to listen to the rest, but this is amazing stuff. Not just for US citizens, but for anyone interested in what has changed on a geopolitical scale in the last decade. Thanks a lot for the links.

I don't expect a perfect democracy in Afghanistan. Most people know a strong rule of law is necessary for a strong democracy. Afghanistan is still too illiterite and tribal for that to occur.

I just thing change will occur quicker under a corrupt democracy that tolerates warlords than under the iron-fist of the Taliban that keeps it's women locked in the house, destroys whatever art and culture it can find in the country, and tries to keep it's citizens in the dark ages.

We just have to leave the Afghan government with enough power to keep control with a centralized army and police. Then let them slowly grow stronger and fair institutions on their own over the long term.

I think it was stupid for Abdullah to boycott the run-off election. If he thinks Karzai was just going to cheat, he should of forced Karzai to have to cheat and then document the infractions. Instead, he just hands Karzai an easy victory. Personally, I think Abdullah probably realized he would not win enough votes even with a fair vote and decided to boycott to save face.

thumbs up bro

From Huffpo:

Oh goody, I'm glad we're going to limit the number of war lords in power there! Now our involvement makes perfect sense. USA USA USA! Go freedom!

Seriously, can we GTFO already?

Afghanistan...it'll look something more like this.

http://www.obleek.com/iraq/

And another free tip. If we in the west ever want these forays to pay off we need to stop supporting people like these.

I wonder why that map stops in October 2007, right at the peak of the Iraq Surge offensive and doesn't track the huge drop in fatalities after it's success. Did the ones who created it lose interest after Iraq started to turn around?

If a surge in troops to Afghanistan has the same effect, it will be a great success.

You clearly lack any sort of historical knowledge, do you?

Actually, thats probably the correct assumption made about almost anyone in favor of any further MILITARY involvement in Afghanistan since... well, since Alexander the Great or so.

As if Afghanistan was a matter of throwing armed bodies at it... yeah right, cause that works soooo well.

The USA and its allies (read: we) have lost this war. We actually have lost it quite a while back. It may take another couple hundred dead soldiers and billions of spending, and it may make another two or three contractor companies rich, but this thing is over. We just refuse to accept it.