Afghanistan: What to Do?

They need to get the hell out.

It's always been a forlorn hope. History shows that Afghanistan just can't be subdued, it's a mess of tribal rivalries and none of the players in the 'Great Game' have ever succeeded in untangling the mess. We can't impose a western style of government on a tribal society.

It isn't called the 'Graveyard of Empires' for nothing.

Sorry, it's a real bugbear of mine. I just can't believe how the talking heads completely ignored history before they went blundering in 8 years ago.

We need to do one or the other: either surge to our greatest ability, or get out all together. I could live with either -- but I wouldn't like the in between.

Not a big fan of War to begin with.

ETA: Continue to enlist the aid of Pakistan.

Seems to me the bigger question is: How do we realistically deal with Islamic Extremists scattered hither and yon?

If Al Queda is hiding there, then that's where it takes us.

A change of strategy? Sure. A complete withdrawal? No.

I had friends die in 9/11 and family narrowly escape. And all my family was definitely affected by it in some way or another.

Afghanistan isn't the problem, Al Queda is. Afghanistan (Pakistan) just happens to be the place they're holed up. And the Afghanistan problem is still a problem only because of serious past errors made in resources and the effort being switched to Iran.

To be honest, I'm all for the Big Bang All Out theory. Go balls to the wall throwing everything we have into the area for the next six months and see if they ever crawl back out again.

It's a chickenshit response to the poll, but I punt. I'm glad I don't have to make this decision. On the one hand, if we had a defined and achievable objective, l'd support a surge. If we had reason to believe we could get Osama or cripple al-Qaida, okay.

But does anyone really believe we can accomplish that? What will we gain -- other than delaying the civilian bloodbath -- by keeping our soldiers in that hell hole for five, ten, fifty more years?

Whatever the decision, I hope we've learned that we can't fight the "war on terror" through invasion, occupation, and "nation-building." Pretty expensive fucking lesson, and I don't mean the cash.

A troop surge and renewed offensive.

Other. Blockade the heroin traffic to put the Taliban out of business. Meanwhile, guard the farmers and help them grow other crops. Wheat, maybe, if the rust infestation creeping across the Middle East can be dealt with.

LaceWing said:

Other. Blockade the heroin traffic to put the Taliban out of business.

Click to expand...

Cannot be done. You might as well say, win the war on drugs.

Meanwhile, guard the farmers and help them grow other crops. Wheat, maybe, if the rust infestation creeping across the Middle East can be dealt with.

Click to expand...

Opium gives them ten times the money.It's not realistic to think they will abandon it. Plus, the opium trade doesn't just fund the taliban -- it funds the warlords and the power brokers in the current afghan gov't -- like Karzai's brother.

I'm with GregB -- I punt.

My head tells me we need a troop surge but then I come across things like this that take it back to the emotional side...



and I know I can't offer up a strong black or white opinion on what should be done.

I voted other. I've often wondered about the amount of accurate info that gets released or leaked to the public. Seems to me that now President Obama is following in Bush's footsteps, which is in sharp contrast to what then Senator Obama preached on the campaign trail. He must now know something he didn't know then, and that leads me to believe we'll knever know enough to make an intelligent arguement about the situation.

Having never declared I'm intelligent, I feel justified to weigh in. I'd withdraw the troops, increase intelligence gathering operations, and send in special ops to take out certain targets and drones or bombers to take out larger ones like training camps where innocent lives would hopefully be spared. No more loss of American or allied lives to roadside or suicide bombs, children get to see their mommy or daddy, and the billions saved could be better spent - like taking care of our vets.

I rarely agree with DW, but I do this time. A week or so ago I read a very good article titled "There is nothing in the middle of the road other than dead american soldiers"

deathwizard said:

We need to do one or the other: either surge to our greatest ability, or get out all together. I could live with either -- but I wouldn't like the in between.

Click to expand...

Completely agreed. Truth be told, we haven't tried our 'best' yet (I'll elaborate in a minute)

brokenfingers said:

If Al Queda is hiding there, then that's where it takes us.

A change of strategy? Sure. A complete withdrawal? No.

I had friends die in 9/11 and family narrowly escape. And all my family was definitely affected by it in some way or another.

Afghanistan isn't the problem, Al Queda is. Afghanistan (Pakistan) just happens to be the place they're holed up.

Click to expand...

The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq is that too many people keep thinking of it as a military problem.

IT IS NOT SOLELY A MILITARY PROBLEM.
Our war against Al Queda is a Socio-political-economic-cultural-military War, but too many people only see the bolded black.

We have yet to effectively engage Afghanistan on ALL FRONTS of this war to include political, economic, culture, socio, etc. etc.

From a political science perspective, the US and the World needs to turn Afghanistan into a thriving center of hope and prosperity.

First, we need to ensure security
Second, we need to build some freaking roads and infrastructure.
Third, we need to help them generate more industry
Fourth, we need to help them build a thriving economy

That is how you defeat Al Queda, because it is near impossible to recruit people to blow themselves up when they have roofs over their heads and a full belly and hope for a decent future.

Truth is, we have yet to really 'try' in Afghanistan. We need to 'try' first and unfortunately, the last 8 years is a sunk cost that we cannot allow to influence our future decisions.

It sounds callous, but it is true. If we leave/abandon Afghanistan, how much support will we get from them 2, 5, 10 years from now when Al Queda attacks us again?

Mel...

dgiharris said:

First, we need to ensure security
Second, we need to build some freaking roads and infrastructure.
Third, we need to help them generate more industry
Fourth, we need to help them build a thriving economy

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm a bit of a bitch, but I don't want that done on my tax dollar. We need similar improvements here. Our economy needs help. We need more jobs for Americans. Our roads and bridges need fixing. I'd prefer my money to stay here to be used for MY people.

If the people of Afghanistan want those things(And I don't disagree that they need those things,) they need to do something positive about it. That's their responsibility.

It's not our job to fix their problems. We're there to neutralize the enemy--period.

You're not gonig to defeat al-qaeda with a lto of troops, we've already seen this proven. Al-Qaeda are like ants. Kill them and more show up. you've got to take out the source of their ideology. Unless you're willnig to carpet bomb all of northern Pakistan, more force won't work. Surgical strikes are the key. Show the world that bin Laden is nothing but a fake and a charlatan, that he's nothing but a spoiled rich kid playing army men with his daddy's money. He's never even killed a man by most accounts.

How do you show the world this? By maknig him run like he did in Tora Bora. Make him look weak. (capturing him would also serve this purpose).

Troop surge and renewed offensive, though it's not exactly what it sounds like. According to McChrystal, who I think is a very smart bubba, he needs a larger footprint to undermine the Talibs and get to AQ. I support that.

We would have caught bin Laden at Tora Bora if we'd had sufficient force density, but Franks (and his superiors) wanted to use the NA forces as proxies, whereas our guys were in blocking positions elsewhere. Well, when the NA forces didn't show up for the fight, our guys had to come forward, but it was too late. We were too slow, our allies were reluctant to fight, and we didn't have enough guys. No sense in making the same mistake twice.

I'm very conflicted about this. On the one hand, I don't see why more soldiers from all over the world should give their lives for an unwinnable war. On the other, I think we have a responsibility to the Afghan people now. The British have left Afghanistan little more than rubble before, as have the Americans and the Russians. While I will NEVER excuse extremism or terrorism, it's understandable why Afghanistan is in the state it is.

Also, from a selfishly nationalistic point of view, the British army CANNOT be stuck with all the responsibility for this. So we need to get out either before, or at the same time as the US does. But if Afghanistan's turned over to the UN, which will, in my view, be armed with little more than potato peelers and harsh language, I think the whole campaign will be conceded as a massive waste of time, money and lives.

As I say, I'm conflicted. Leaving the Afghan people with no houses, jobs or security AGAIN is going to provoke further extremism, and give the Taliban a foothold to regroup. But I want our troops out. I'm not entitled, or well-informed enough, to say what I think the US should do, so I'm aware I haven't properly answered Mr Haskins' question. But I think it's time for the British to go. I think owning up to a mistake is braver than ploughing on in a desperate attempt to save face.

aadams73 said:

Maybe I'm a bit of a bitch, but I don't want that done on my tax dollar. We need similar improvements here. Our economy needs help. We need more jobs for Americans. Our roads and bridges need fixing. I'd prefer my money to stay here to be used for MY people.

Click to expand...

Some of your tax dollar is going to Afghanistan regardless, in the form of continued funding for military operations. The question is, would you rather your tax dollar be spent on bombing mountainsides, or be put toward something that may actually lead to long-term solutions?

A continued military presence in Afghanistan looks a necessity, but I think dgiharris is entirely correct in saying that a strategy based exclusively in military operations is an exercise in futility, and the resentments, some bitter, that such actions engender can only continue to fuel a cycle of tragedy.

If the people of Afghanistan want those things(And I don't disagree that they need those things,) they need to do something positive about it. That's their responsibility.

Click to expand...

Do you honestly think they're not trying? Extremely poor countries face a host of problems in trying to work their way out of poverty, from trade exploitation, to resource poverty/surplus, to damaging aid programs that improperly target key problems, to corruption, to governmental instability, to military threats from outside and within, to dangerous or lawless neighbours, to transport and informational access, to infrastructure issues, and more, and all of these problems are interrelated.

These countries need help to do that on any kind of politically relevant timescale. Given also that the poorest countries are generally the easiest ones for militant, terrorist organisations to operate and thrive in, can you really argue that blowing their countryside up until x,y, and z targets are dead is the answer?

It's not our job to fix their problems. We're there to neutralize the enemy--period.

Click to expand...

Only to make another enemy in the process. And what happens then?

A massive offensive that reminded these insolent little bastards who they're dealing with is surely warranted. I am well aware that Russia died fighting a war in Afghanistan, it is for that reason that we need to at least go out strong. Winning isn't really a possibility. I say it isn't a possibility because unfortunately, all of the power players in the region are murderous crooks. The "elected" government is corrupt, the Taliban is corrupt and the various militarized Afghan factions that have been assisting us in our "war" effort are corrupt.

We need to go in strong, do as much damage as possible to the command structures of the Taliban and Al Qaeda (while restoring some semblance of control to Pakistan, who at this point is at more risk from the Taliban than Afghanistan), install an intelligence network in the area... and then call it a decade. The worst part about Afghanistan is the perception that this war will be perpetual. Our armed forces cannot be expected to languish in that HELL HOLE, for eternity.

Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? GTFO and quit wasting our youth and destroying our economy for a war that cannot be won.

If you don't like the Vietnam example, how about Britain in North America in the 1770s?

Our troops are fighting because they're told to. Their opponents are fighting for their homes and their way of life. Long term, there's only one way that plays out.

Russia died there not because the jihadis were masters of their domain, but because the US sent in a buttload of Special Forces trainers and handed out Stinger MANPADS to them. Ivan's overarching superiority was his attack helicopters (Mi-24s) and general air mobility. Once the Afghans got their hands on shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, Ivan lost a lot of the ability to seize the initiative. Without attack helicopters to provide top cover, the Soviet motorized rifle regiments were fairly exposed to conventional light infantry tactics...also taught to the Afghans by the Green Beanies.

There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, that's what reversed Ivan's standings.

Noah Body said:

There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, that's what reversed Ivan's standings.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the point, I agree with you... but I don't think there is a possibility for a win in the context of America and apple pie. We need to do as much damage to our enemies as we can, install the best intelligence network we can... and then get the hell out of there. I would give the military what it wants... for 24 months.

If AQ is our center of gravity for extended combat operations and not nation building, 24 months sounds pretty reasonable. But if the goal is to turn Afghanistan into another shining beacon of democracy, that's a check we can't cash. I'd rather we stand down and pull out and take on AQ again further down the road.

Noah Body said:

...But if the goal is to turn Afghanistan into another shining beacon of democracy, that's a check we can't cash. I'd rather we stand down and pull out and take on AQ again further down the road.

Click to expand...

Amen brother.

As Mel indicated, this isn't something to be won with traditional force of arms.

It's a long haul battle of politics, economics and covert ops.