"Soviet" solution in Afghanistan? [Archive]

Brenus

02-02-2010, 00:21

Are the USA and Allies opting for a Soviet Style withdrawing of Afghanistan?

After years of winning a war, they now acknowledge they will have to make peace with the enemies.
I know it is nicer to make peace with friend but it doesn’t help really in a war…
So the plan is to pay the “Taliban” fighters to give up and to provide them with lands and means to earn a living…
That is a smell of agrarian reform or not?
Now, why this aspect of development was missed until now is a mystery…

So, after having fun at the former USSR expenses, we are just remembering than the Taliban never won the war…
When they try to attack Jalalabad, the Taliban were defeated by the Communists.
Only the disintegration of USSR and the Dostom’s Uzbek going to Massud allowed this “victory”.
Victory never completed as the Northern Alliance of Massud was still alive when NATO finally decide to get rid of a system I will not qualify as Medieval as it is a insult to Middle ages Civilisation (just compare women status and the Amour Courtois in Middle Ages… Is there a Taliban Mathild, Alienor? Will we see a Afghan Joan of Arc?)

Is the plan will work, and at what price?

Subotan

02-02-2010, 00:36

an Afghan Joan of Arc

Doubtful. I've yet to see anyone command guerilla operations in a burqa.

Cute Wolf

02-02-2010, 03:51

At least that was more humane method of solution, but what if Taliban spreading propaganda that they are "won"?

Certainly withdrawing troops was humane solution, but to prevent teh taliban morale to rising up too high (and in turns promote more radicalism), the Allies should doing something that seal their victory, and preventing further debate about "who win the war"..... as long as they don't drop a nuke to seal it....

The Wizard

02-02-2010, 18:09

The mujahideen were not, I repeat not, the same thing as the Taliban. The Taliban were only created in the mid-nineties, more than half a decade after the Soviets withdrew from A-stan and years after the collapse of the socialist regime. They are a faction who promised to deliver Afghanistan from the depradations it suffered at the hands of the former mujahideen, who had turned into warlords (which they arguably were during the Soviet war as well).

That said, I am very sceptical towards this plan of making peace with "moderate" Taliban ("moderate" here meaning "still so conservative it makes the Pope look like a screaming long-haired Berkeley activist") while the war's still going. Can we even contact Taliban "moderates"? Who is to say the Afghan people will appreciate this? Lord knows they hate the Taliban as much as they hate the warlords -- which we, ever so graciously, have already included in the current government. To the immense anger of almost every single Afghan.

spmetla

02-02-2010, 19:13

If this were an enemy that would just go away if we left the country I'd be all for drawing up terms and pulling out. However, seeing as the Taliban are a threat to the region and will likely host groups like Al Queda again I don't favor pulling out. I also don't think that the Afghan government could stand on it's own even if we did continue funding them and training them outside of Afghanistan. It's a mess of a problem but I don't think our best solution is pulling out of there.

Tristuskhan

02-02-2010, 19:37

That is a smell of agrarian reform or not?
Now, why this aspect of development was missed until now is a mystery…

Very unlikely, alas. two reasons come to mind:

1/That would hurt the notability in power. Nothing to be done about it: both communist governments in the 80's gave it a try and it was a major factor in the general uprising. I doubt the local men in power are now unable to raise the population against such measures.

2/Alas again, agriculture is a very, very hasardous way to earn one's life in Afghanistan.
Yields are low and likely to remain so (agricultural education would help more than a bit, Afghans are so busy fighting for thirty years that few skilled farmers remain) Commercial agriculture -about making your family live, not just eat- could only be sustained for a short while with massive investment in agrochemicals that would very fast deplete the soil's capacities of recycling organic matter into stable and assimilable nutrients, and boost leaching. Afghanistan is already deforested to the bone and feeding the Sea of Oman with the (comparably) fertile portion of it's land... Leaching is a tremendous problem. To bring back afghan agriculture to life the methods needed would deprive Monsanto, Cargill et al of good profit, hence no funds will be provided, my bet.
Another hazard is mines and various UED. Enough said: if you have no choice but living on the land in such conditions you SHALL sensibly chose cultures that are worth it financially. IE: opium and hemp.

KukriKhan

02-03-2010, 15:40

Are the USA and Allies opting for a Soviet Style withdrawing of Afghanistan?

Not in 2010, certainly. But maybe in 2011. In my opinion, it depends on what happens in both A-stan and P-stan between now and next winter.

One thing is for sure: whenever the US + NATO pull out, whether in 2011 or 2021, Osama bin Laden, or his replacement, will declare "VICTORY!!".

Fragony

02-03-2010, 16:01

And they would be right

CrossLOPER

02-03-2010, 16:35

Are the USA and Allies opting for a Soviet Style withdrawing of Afghanistan?
Go home and totally collapse? I didn't think the economic crisis was that bad.

PanzerJaeger

02-03-2010, 16:47

Are the USA and Allies opting for a Soviet Style withdrawing of Afghanistan?

The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008. O's comically long four month strategy session, culminating in a grand display of political fence riding which gave McCrystal almost as much as he needed and told the Taliban exactly how long they had to wait to retake the country (2011), only further confirmed it.

Its a sad state of affairs, but our current C&C doesn't take the threat from Islamic extremism seriously and doesn't have the will to win.

drone

02-03-2010, 16:58

The war in Afghanistan was lost March 20th, 2003.

The Wizard

02-03-2010, 17:04

Nothing's lost. The problem is twofold: reversing 30 years of vicious conflict in Afghanistan, and getting Pakistan to actually do something. Pakistan is perhaps our worst ally, worse even than Saudi Arabia.

And yes, I am aware that these are no small barriers to success.

Brenus

02-04-2010, 00:17

The war is far from lost. Actually, the Taliban never won a war.
The Soviets left under the pression of the Mudjahidin, then these took power thanks to the collapse of USSR, then fought each others.
The Taliban arrived then, and were welcome by a population tired by the endless war. But just before the NATO attack, they had problem to finish off the Nothern Alliance...

The only power they have is they can drag the war for years, so they bet on USA & Allies to become tired...
But they are not the Viet-cong nor NVA...

My view on this is do what the Soviets intend to do: Withdraw with dignity, but, as nobody really think that US will implod soon, support a "democratic" government, and from outside, just time to time, when needed, drop LRRP and Recon to kill theTaliban leaders who will be obliged to show up, if they want to control the population.

Built markets, school and rural health Centres, attrack the ennemy out of the mountains or hit and run them in their lairs...

rory_20_uk

02-06-2010, 11:51

Danegeld does not work. After the free money today goes, better stir up some more trouble for another bolus. The dear President is only thinking of himself. Bribes further increases the money sloshing around the country which he can then syphon off, and provides temporary safety so he and his mates can suck that bit more cash, before a "dignified" extended trip abroad when the time comes.

If there is anything that is of value in the country, protect that resource and leave the rest of the place to the locals. A proportion of the profits can be given to the government of the country to do as they see fit

~:smoking:

Skullheadhq

02-06-2010, 13:31

Also, the 'war' in Afganistan was never lost, its just impossible to win. As soon as you kill one terrorist, ten more are levied to take his place.

KukriKhan

02-06-2010, 14:53

The war in Afghanistan was lost March 20th, 2003.

Amen.

If I were the guy in charge of "doing something" - besides packing up and waving good-bye - I'd set my soldiers to being Afghanistan's Border Patrol, stopping the leakage in and out of the place. Let CIA & Spec Ops work the interior. Home by September 2012. That will have been 11 years in that place. Enough.

The Wizard

02-06-2010, 15:35

And let the country drop like a stone, the way we did in 1989? No thanks.

Lemur

02-06-2010, 19:31

The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008.
Um, yeah, 'cause the Afghanistan front was managed so brilliantly up until then (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print).

[A] new unpublished Army history of the war (http://documents.nytimes.com/a-different-kind-of-war#p=1) concludes [...] the Pentagon insisted on maintaining a “small footprint” in Afghanistan and because Iraq was drawing away resources, General Barno commanded fewer than 20,000 troops.

As a result, battalions with 800 soldiers were trying to secure provinces the size of Vermont. “Coalition forces remained thinly spread across Afghanistan,” the historians write. “Much of the country remained vulnerable to enemy forces increasingly willing to reassert their power.”

That early and undermanned effort to use counterinsurgency is one of several examples of how American forces, hamstrung by inadequate resources, missed opportunities to stabilize Afghanistan during the early years of the war, according to the history, “A Different Kind of War.”

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2010, 20:10

Also, the 'war' in Afganistan was never lost, its just impossible to win. As soon as you kill one terrorist, ten more are levied to take his place.

You ARE aware that a majority of guerilla-style efforts have failed, yes? In point of fact, guerilla efforts never succeed until they a) transform themselves into a force capable of winning conventionally, or b) the occupying power says "Oh, chuck it all" and leaves.

HoreTore

02-07-2010, 01:01

You ARE aware that a majority of guerilla-style efforts have failed, yes? In point of fact, guerilla efforts never succeed until they a) transform themselves into a force capable of winning conventionally, or b) the occupying power says "Oh, chuck it all" and leaves.

The point of a guerilla war is never to beat an invader, it is to make the invader say "Oh, chuck it all" and leave. That's a "win" for the guerilla force.

PanzerJaeger

02-07-2010, 05:33

Um, yeah, 'cause the Afghanistan front was managed so brilliantly up until then (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print).

It is common knowledge that the DoD's "Small Footprint" strategy failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hindsight is 20/20 and sometimes the price of innovation is failure. I have a hard time faulting Bush & Co for choosing a strategy that was meant to avoid the Vietnam scenario and save money. If top commanders declare a strategy feasible, I imagine it would be difficult for political leader whose only military experience is flying fighter jets to discern otherwise. I believe there was another rather famous American president who struggled with failing military strategies until he found the right commander for the job. ~;)

However, the Bush administration successfully changed strategy in Iraq and was in the process of doing so (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/washington/23policy.html)in Afghanistan when Obama took over. Spitefully (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/biden-ally-says-obama-team-got-bushcheney-afghanistan-report-but-didnt-put-much-stock-in-it.html), Obama ignored that information which could have saved him precious time and American lives and undertook his own comically dramatic and drawn out review of the situation with important players like Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Biden. The outcome, in contrast to Bush's surge, was a slow build up of 75% of what the field commander needed and a clear date for withdrawal. Anyone with any knowledge of the Taliban understands that they think in generational terms and that a year is nothing to them. Giving them a clear date for how long they have to wait until the Americans leave only emboldens them to continue the fight. If Obama follows through with his pullout date due to politically expediency, it will be his loss. Thankfully, after his big speech on the subject, Gates immediately came out to directly contradict his boss on that point. What a zoo.

Subotan

02-07-2010, 13:37

It could work the other way as well. If the Taliban leaders tell their soldiers "They're all gonna be gone in 18 months, you've gotta keep fighting for only 18 months", and then the Americans are still there after, say, 24 months (As Obama said he would start pulling out after 18 months), then it's likely that a proportion of the Taliban will be discouraged.

rory_20_uk

02-07-2010, 15:30

The Taliban leaders are unlikely to be that stupid. Afghans are pretty belligerent at the best of times and the alternative to war and hardship isn't that great. After the coalition is gone, there's still many locals to fight, so the battles will go on for months if not years afterwards anyway.

~:smoking:

Lemur

02-07-2010, 16:48

It is common knowledge that the DoD's "Small Footprint" strategy failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hindsight is 20/20 and sometimes the price of innovation is failure.
Goodness, you're very forgiving and understanding about a demonstrably failed strategy, especially given that it cost American lives, threw away countless opportunities, and given that generals, experts and policy wonks all argued against it from the very beginning. Are you this mellow toward all military cock-ups, or do you sometimes ...

Spitefully (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/biden-ally-says-obama-team-got-bushcheney-afghanistan-report-but-didnt-put-much-stock-in-it.html), Obama ignored that information which could have saved him precious time and American lives and undertook his own comically dramatic and drawn out review of the situation with important players like Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Biden.
Ah, gotcha. So a seven-year failed military policy is okay and understandable if you're a Republican, but a four-month reassesment is spiteful, cowardly and defeatist if you're a Democrat.

I swear, PJ, if your motives were any more transparent I'd have to install them as a windows.

For the mental exercise, you should attempt to construct an argument where Obama is not the root of all evil. I don't believe you are suffering from ODS (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13496418), but your posting style may mislead those Orgahs who naïvely take you at your word.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2010, 19:15

The point of a guerilla war is never to beat an invader, it is to make the invader say "Oh, chuck it all" and leave. That's a "win" for the guerilla force.

As I noted. However, historically, more guerilla efforts have run out of steam prior to the occupiers having said "chuck it" than the other way around. Too many people accept the "myth of the guerilla" without analyzing it.

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 06:02

Ah, gotcha. So a seven-year failed military policy is okay and understandable if you're a Republican, but a four-month reassesment is spiteful, cowardly and defeatist if you're a Democrat.

I can forgive mistakes on military matters from political leaders if they resolve themselves to fixing them, but I cannot forgive the spineless political pandering, masking defeatism, that Obama's summit produced.

Lincoln faced the likes of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville among many other crushing defeats, while Churchill presided over Dunkirk and Gazala among many others as well. In the face of years of unmitigated military disasters, these men didn't announce time tables for withdrawal - they steeled themselves to keep fighting, to figure out what worked, and to win. GWB, for all the hatred and furor, did the same. Its easy to say he should have listened to those arguing against the strategy instead of its proponents, but thats all Monday morning quarterbacking. Now, thanks to him, we finally have in place a Defense Secretary and a military command well suited to winning the type of war in which we are involved, but our current president doesn't have the heart for it.

Our nation hasn't endured anything close to the magnitude of those previously mentioned defeats, yet the proverbial kitchen gets a little hot and the current C&C is looking for the most politically expedient way out. Why even have this half-hearted, politically compromised bastardization of Patraeus' "surge"? Why waste more American lives when the end date has already been laid out in a prime time speech to the country?

That kind of pathetic, play-to-both-sides, political maneuvering with American lives is diametrically opposed to GWB's resoluteness in the face of adversity and is as disgusting as it is transparent.

Edit: If you can frame my motivations, can I take a stab at yours? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-BCbKuJGA)

CrossLOPER

02-09-2010, 06:10

That kind of pathetic, play-to-both-sides, political maneuvering with American lives is diametrically opposed to GWB's resoluteness in the face of adversity and is as disgusting as it is transparent.That's more absent minded stubbornness and callous disregard than resoluteness.

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2010, 06:14

I don't understand, Afghanistan is an Islamic country, all those Islamic countries are in the middle east (I wouldnt be surprised if Hamas cross the border between Afghanistan and Jordan frequently), but guess what is right next to the middle east ummm GREECE duh! Why can't we save on troop transportation by just paying the Greek government to give us some Spartans on loan and have them solve the problem for us since those guys are unbeatable (I saw a documentary called Deadliest Warrior that scientifically tested them and proved they were the Deadliest Warrior). /ignorantamerican

Lemur

02-09-2010, 13:59

Edit: If you can frame my motivations, can I take a stab at yours? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-BCbKuJGA)
The key difference, which you would see if you were not blinded by raw hatred of our president, is that I am not trying to argue that everything good is Obama's blessing, which would be the mirror of your intractable arguments that everything bad is Obama's fault. So, comparison epic fail. Cheers.

Beskar

02-09-2010, 14:07

Lincoln faced the likes of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville among many other crushing defeats, while Churchill presided over Dunkirk and Gazala among many others as well. In the face of years of unmitigated military disasters, these men didn't announce time tables for withdrawal - they steeled themselves to keep fighting, to figure out what worked, and to win. GWB, for all the hatred and furor, did the same. Its easy to say he should have listened to those arguing against the strategy instead of its proponents, but thats all Monday morning quarterbacking. Now, thanks to him, we finally have in place a Defense Secretary and a military command well suited to winning the type of war in which we are involved, but our current president doesn't have the heart for it.

I like how you compared the American Civil War and War World 2 with Afghanistan.

I didn't know they identical, nevermind vaguely similar.

Wouldn't a closer comparison be Vietnam? oh wait, that destroys what you were saying, nevermind.

Subotan

02-09-2010, 14:43

You're acting as if the Taliban are unbeatable, in that they won't be beaten in the next 18 months. If that's the case, sending an extra 10,000 men would hardly win the war for America.
Oh and

Date to start withdrawal != End date

Just pointing that out.

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 15:32

The key difference, which you would see if you were not blinded by raw hatred of our president, is that I am not trying to argue that everything good is Obama's blessing, which would be the mirror of your intractable arguments that everything bad is Obama's fault. So, comparison epic fail. Cheers.

And.... that would hold water if I had argued that everything was Obama's fault. Actually, I've only made five or six posts about the Obama since he's been president - one of which stating my opinion that he wasn't even close to being the worst president (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?112822-Thoughts-Commentary-on-the-Obama-Administration&p=2427684&viewfull=1#post2427684) we've had so far. Now then, its no secret I'm not a big Obama fan, but "raw hatred"? Hardly. If it is going to be your SOP every time I post something critical of the president to attack your presumptions of my feelings towards him instead of my arguments, just let me know and I won't bother responding.

And fyi, I support the president's decision to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It's something Bush should have done as a war necessity, considering how desperately we need Arabic translators.

I like how you compared the American Civil War and War World 2 with Afghanistan.

I didn't know they identical, nevermind vaguely similar.

Wouldn't a closer comparison be Vietnam? oh wait, that destroys what you were saying, nevermind.

Actually, you’re right. Vietnam is possibly the best example I could use in support of my point. When the President doesn’t have the will to win, and decides on a strategy designed only to tread water, defeat soon follows.

If Obama had any backbone, he should have just come out and said he didn’t believe the war was winnable, didn’t believe the threat was real, or wanted to save the money for the next asinine social program he decides to propose instead of ordering those Americans into that hellhole only to start withdrawing them immediately after they reach full strength. It reeks of the way LBJ fought Vietnam.

Lemur

02-09-2010, 15:42

And.... that would hold water if I had argued that everything was Obama's fault. Actually, I've only made five or six posts about the Obama since he's been president - one of which stating my opinion that he wasn't even close to being the worst president (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?112822-Thoughts-Commentary-on-the-Obama-Administration&p=2427684&viewfull=1#post2427684) we've had so far.
Only after my prompting, which was due to the fact that you've been back less than a week, and yet you've managed to post consistently about how much you loathe and disrespect our "failure in chief," to use your words. This may pass as reasoned debate in Beckistan, but it's rather jarring amongst the unconverted. Here's what I think is going on: You've decided that you, personally, are going to be the corrective for insufficient Obama hate in the Backroom. You've decided that you're going to single-handedly restore balance to the force, by consistently bashing the president in every thread and every topic in which you post, whether it makes the smallest amount of sense or not. As for what you actually believe, who knows? I find it impossible to say whether I have heard a single honest opinion out of you ever, given your propensity to game, posture and play to a preconceived narrative.

Now then, its no secret I'm not a big Obama fan, but "raw hatred"? Hardly. If it is going to be your SOP every time I post something critical of the president to attack your presumptions of my feelings towards him instead of my arguments, just let me know and I won't bother responding.
As I said, I have no idea what you actually feel or believe, and I doubt I could ever know given the way you treat debate. However, your current persona consists of virulent, non-stop, frequently non-sensical attacks on President 44. Not to mention publicly praising President Bush as "steadfast," marking your persona as one of the 15% of Americans who believe George W. Bush was a good president.

The sad thing is that I think there's an interesting and well-educated person behind the Panzer persona, but I don't know if I'll ever be allowed to meet him.

As for responding to your "arguments," well, they're more like a string of negative assertions than anything I would call an argument. Here's your samples from the last week:

Obama unquestionably represents the worst elements of contemporary American politics

I'm sure he won't be the last Democrat to tell the Failure in Chief to stay the hell away...

[I]t always surprises me that so many people believe POTUS came out of that cesspool [Illinois] squeaky clean... or even with a shred of integrity left.

The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008. [...] our current C&C doesn't take the threat from Islamic extremism seriously and doesn't have the will to win.

If Obama had any backbone [...]

And so on and so forth. And the amusing thing is, I don't see anyone praising Obama with anything like the metronomic regularity of your disses. So you're applying a corrective to ... what? Or just venting your spleen for the good of all, perhaps?

Beskar

02-09-2010, 16:53

And so on and so forth. And the amusing thing is, I don't see anyone praising Obama with anything like the metronomic regularity of your disses. So you're applying a corrective to ... what? Or just venting your spleen for the good of all, perhaps?

It is because the rest of us already know that Obama is a blessing compared to likes of Bush jr. So he feels the need to keep insulting Obama, so people dislike him, because "that other guy dislikes him".

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 18:32

That is indeed an interesting analysis, Lemur. You are just as perceptive as I remember you to be. Needless to say, I disagree. :smiley:

In any event, I don't believe I'm out on a limb in describing the presidency as a failure so far, or even out of the mainstream. I thought said failure was common knowledge around the Beltway in both right and left-leaning circles, so I don't know why you're so hung up on that. Further, I don't remember ever reading a positive comment you made about GWB. Should I take from that observation that anything you did write about the man came from a hateful and reactionary place?

Out of respect for Brenus and in an effort to stop the thread from drifting even further off topic, I will refrain from the usual point by point. Perhaps another time and place?

To return to the topic at hand, let me ask you if you feel the president's announcement of a withdrawal date in the same speech as he announced his "surge" was a wise decision? And if so, why?

It is because the rest of us already know that Obama is a blessing compared to likes of Bush jr. So he feels the need to keep insulting Obama, so people dislike him, because "that other guy dislikes him".

At least Lemur has some history with me to draw on, but who exactly are you to draw inferences about my motivations?

My opinions are not uncommon. In fact, I share them with about half the country if polls are to be believed. Are you guys living in a bubble that the general dissatisfaction with Obama has not yet penetrated?

Aemilius Paulus

02-09-2010, 18:40

My opinions are not uncommon. In fact, I share them with about half the country if polls are to be believed. Are you guys living in a bubble that the general dissatisfaction with Obama has not yet penetrated?
Mmm, how so? Not approving is quite common. Loathing or thrashing so relentlessly and zealously is another deal. And this is coming from a Republican-turned-Democrat who thinks Dubya was an OK President if not for his decision to invade Iraq (that would be me).

Not to mention, Obama would be far more popular if the GOP did not adopt the ludicrous "NO" strategy which is nearly unprecedented arrogance not to mention, the epitome of unconstructive attitudes. At least the GOP mostly stopped spreading the nasty rumours which floated around during the elections and the first month of Obama's Presidency *death panels, communism - shudder*

Beskar

02-09-2010, 18:50

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 19:00

Mmm, how so? Not approving is quite common. Loathing or thrashing so relentlessly and zealously is another deal. And this is coming from a Republican-turned-Democrat who thinks Dubya was an OK President if not for his decision to invade Iraq (that would be me).

Not to mention, Obama would be far more popular if the GOP did not adopt the ludicrous "NO" strategy which is nearly unprecedented arrogance not to mention, the epitome of unconstructive attitudes. At least the GOP mostly stopped spreading the nasty rumours which floated around during the elections and the first month of Obama's Presidency *death panels, communism - shudder*

Rasmussen has today's "Strongly Disapprove (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)" number at 40%. Consider me there.

And yes, it is generally the opposition party that drives... well... opposition to the ruling party and its leader. Somewhat unique to Obama is the amount of grassroots opposition his policies have elicited, separate from GOP efforts. They're trying their hardest now to catch up to it.

Furunculus

02-09-2010, 19:17

It is called "The World" and we in "The World" like Obama. :yes:

In particular, Europe.

the world doesn't matter, americans matter.

Beskar

02-09-2010, 19:30

the world doesn't matter, americans matter.

Praise our American Overlords!

The Wizard

02-09-2010, 19:30

So I guess instead of America being The World, Europe is The World. What a constructive advance...

I don't understand, Afghanistan is an Islamic country, all those Islamic countries are in the middle east (I wouldnt be surprised if Hamas cross the border between Afghanistan and Jordan frequently), but guess what is right next to the middle east ummm GREECE duh! Why can't we save on troop transportation by just paying the Greek government to give us some Spartans on loan and have them solve the problem for us since those guys are unbeatable (I saw a documentary called Deadliest Warrior that scientifically tested them and proved they were the Deadliest Warrior). /ignorantamerican

This was an ignorant and utterly useless comment.

Aemilius Paulus

02-09-2010, 19:38

Rasmussen has today's "Strongly Disapprove (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)" number at 40%. Consider me there.

Yeah, 'cause a bloke who made this polling organisation was on the Bush campaign team, and there is no way he can twist data :tongue: (I am only half-joking here)... The fact that conservatives always like to quote Ramsunssen does not help either. Normally people try to pick more neutral pollsters...

I mean, I think the idea of 'balanced news' is rubbish, as news reporting is naturally slanted on on or the other side, but polling organisation should always strive to be neutral. The wording of the questions is everything in a poll. Especially when people are so contradictory - most Americans cringe at large defence spending cuts, education cuts, cuts for medical research foundations, cuts for scholarships, cuts for energy subsidies (outside of US) but when asked if the favour tight budgets, they all wax lyrical on fiscal conservatism...

Subotan

02-09-2010, 19:57

Would you consider the BBC to be neutral?

Aemilius Paulus

02-09-2010, 20:03

Would you consider the BBC to be neutral?
As good as they [news companies] get, yes. BBC is focused on international coverage more so than any other news organisation that focuses strongly on both domestic and international reader markets IMHO (which excludes the purely international propaganda organisations, such as VOA [US] or PressTV [Iran] or RT [Russia])

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 20:05

Yeah, 'cause a bloke who made this polling organisation was on the Bush campaign team, and there is no way he can twist data :tongue: (I am only half-joking here)... The fact that conservatives always like to quote Ramsunssen does not help either. Normally people try to pick more neutral pollsters...

I mean, I think the idea of 'balanced news' is rubbish, as news reporting is naturally slanted on on or the other side, but polling organisation should always strive to be neutral. The wording of the questions is everything in a poll. Especially when people are so contradictory - most Americans cringe at large defence spending cuts, education cuts, cuts for medical research foundations, cuts for scholarships, cuts for energy subsidies (outside of US) but when asked if the favour tight budgets, they all wax lyrical on fiscal conservatism...

If you have a specific issue with Rasmussen's methods, I'm all ears. The only issue I have heard about is the claim that by polling "likely voters" instead of the general public, Rasmussen somehow gets a disproportionate amount of white people, who as a voting block, are less favorable towards Obama. Be that as it may, I believe they have been pretty accurate in past elections.

Regardless, my point was not in a specific number(it changes daily), but in the fact that there is a large percentage of people that strongly disapprove of the president, of which I am a part. Unless you have reason to believe that Rasmussen is completely off the mark on that, by more than a few percentage points either way, I think the point I was making stands.

a completely inoffensive name

02-10-2010, 01:34

This was an ignorant and utterly useless comment.

Thank you for spending the 15 seconds of your life to make that known.

Aemilius Paulus

02-10-2010, 02:35

If you have a specific issue with Rasmussen's methods, I'm all ears. The only issue I have heard about is the claim that by polling "likely voters" instead of the general public, Rasmussen somehow gets a disproportionate amount of white people, who as a voting block, are less favorable towards Obama. Be that as it may, I believe they have been pretty accurate in past elections.
Ouch :tongue: (God, I sure love this tongue smilie, don't I?) But look, I as long-winded I am, and as much as I love to write long posts, I will not trawl through the Internet copy+pasting criticisms of the methods... I mean, I am too lazy :tongue: and you can do it since it is you who has yet to discover this knowledge.

Regardless, my point was not in a specific number(it changes daily), but in the fact that there is a large percentage of people that strongly disapprove of the president, of which I am a part. Unless you have reason to believe that Rasmussen is completely off the mark on that, by more than a few percentage points either way, I think the point I was making stands.
A wise point - I was so carried away with bashing Rasmusen (well-deserved bashing IMNSHO :tongue:) that I forgot that whether Rasmussen is correct or not, they are close. :bow:

I still wanna hear the question they asked though - that would be nice :yes:.

Lemur

02-10-2010, 06:44

A wise point - I was so carried away with bashing Rasmusen (well-deserved bashing IMNSHO :tongue:) that I forgot that whether Rasmussen is correct or not, they are close.
Hmm, I'm not a serious poll-smoker like CA, but even I have heard that Ramussen tends to be the outlier (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/yes-obamas-approval-ratings-are.html), for whatever reason.

I segregate out Rasmussen's approval numbers from the other polls because they've been very different from the rest, generally showing disapproval scores about 10 points higher than the other agencies and approval scores a couple of points lower. Unlike with horse race polling, where all the pollsters are ultimately subject to a pop quiz in the form of an election, there is no obvious way to validate whether an approval poll is right or wrong. That makes it particularly important to pay attention to house effects. Rasmussen's approval ratings for Obama have been different from the other agencies, and/but, they've been consistently and predictably different. In any event, both the Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen data series ultimately show the same pattern: Obama's disapproval ratings have increased over time.

To return to the topic at hand, let me ask you if you feel the president's announcement of a withdrawal date in the same speech as he announced his "surge" was a wise decision? And if so, why?
The president is playing to multiple audiences, not least of which is the corrupt froth at the top of the current Kharzai government. And I have to take issue with your blank assertion that "the Taliban thinks in generational terms." Care to back that up, given that the Taliban has only existed as a notable force since 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Emergence_in_Afghanistan)? How do you support the notion that we're dealing with a multi-generational long-game mastermind group when they've only been a player for sixteen years, the last seven of which they spent out of power? Non sequitur; it does not follow.

My personal opinion is that Obama & Co. were seeking leverage with the existing/emergent power structures in Afghanistan, and the delay had nothing to do with the ostensible policy review. There are a lot of corrupt, crafty fellows in Afghanistan, and telling them that we're going to write a blank check and underwrite their security indefinitely gives them so many angles ... it's enough to make an honest grifter drool. As anyone who has read anything on the subject of CI warfare can tell you, attempting to tamp down an insurgency without a legitimate parnter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_internal_defense#Legitimacy_and_Government) is exactly as productive as plowing the sea.

So let's look at the angles. We're committed, and any attempt to remove support will result in massive political backlash at home and amongst allies. The Afghans know this; they are not stupid. So what impetus do they have to clean up their act, or take their security into their own hands? Why should they take on the hard, unrewarding work of governing when they could just loot like everyone else has done for the last sixty-odd years? Why should they bother to build roads and secure villages if they have an infinite credit card with Uncle Sam's name on it? Getting leverage with the warlordocracy is non-trivial.

So President 44 holds off, and even suggests that he might withdraw. If you followed events in 'Stan during the time, this had something of a focusing, bullying effect on Kharzai and his cronies. Which was a good thing. Now we announce that we're going to up the ante and pour in more troops, but it will not be indefinite. A beginning date for drawdown is given, which, as another poster pointed out in a flash of blinding obviousness, is not the same as a date for withdrawal. (To flog the obvious horse: I can start leaving your house at any time I like; when I actually leave is a whole 'nother matter.)

Your alternative? Are we to underwrite Kharzai and the crazy-quilt patchwork of local warlords indefinitely? Should we annex Afghanistan and make it the 51st state? Given that almost all AQ activity has moved to Pakistan, why would we do this? Moreover, are we to invade, secure and rebuild every failed Muslim nation? If no, why not?

You post a strange mixture of total forgiveness for strategic transgressions made by the previous administration, a seeming total lack of understanding of the complexity of the situation on the ground, a willingness to condemn every diplomatic and military choice made by the current administration, and a series of slogans instead of any vision of how we should proceed in Afghanistan.

If you have a realistic notion of how we should proceed in the Graveyard of Empire, let's hear it.

The Wizard

02-11-2010, 00:20

Erm, Lemur, we basically prop up the entire career of Karzai. Who's to say we can't end it, too? Why not remind the idiot of it? The first step to securing the unending loyalty and support of every Afghan is to take a broomstick and clear out the horrid pigsty of corruption and warlords that is the Afghan government at this point.

Thank you for spending the 15 seconds of your life to make that known.

Trust me pal, it doesn't take that long to think up an appropriate reply to you

Lemur

02-11-2010, 00:32

Erm, Lemur, we basically prop up the entire career of Karzai. Who's to say we can't end it, too?
And replace him with what? The monarchy is a spent force. The Talibs aren't exactly our friends, but they have the backing of the ISI, which means they keep going. None of the old-school mujahedeen have a national base. None of the warlords, either. Mebbe you know something I don't (and that's a strong possibility), but it sure looks like it's Kharzai or someone even less effective. To quote a really bad Jack Nicholson flick, "Is this as good as it gets?"

Seamus Fermanagh

02-11-2010, 04:07

And replace him with what? The monarchy is a spent force. The Talibs aren't exactly our friends, but they have the backing of the ISI, which means they keep going. None of the old-school mujahedeen have a national base. None of the warlords, either. Mebbe you know something I don't (and that's a strong possibility), but it sure looks like it's Kharzai or someone even less effective. To quote a really bad Jack Nicholson flick, "Is this as good as it gets?"

Didn't Jack once also claim to be the best/winner because he was the "leper with the most fingers?"

The Wizard

02-11-2010, 16:44

And replace him with what? The monarchy is a spent force. The Talibs aren't exactly our friends, but they have the backing of the ISI, which means they keep going. None of the old-school mujahedeen have a national base. None of the warlords, either. Mebbe you know something I don't (and that's a strong possibility), but it sure looks like it's Kharzai or someone even less effective. To quote a really bad Jack Nicholson flick, "Is this as good as it gets?"

The warlords ARE the mujahideen, or were, FYI. But sadly, you make a good point. Really, what we need is a bunch of like-minded, university-trained Afghans willing to give all to lead their country out of this. And take the warlords, the drug mafiosi and the Taliban out behind the shed and give them the good old 9mm treatment.

Lemur

02-11-2010, 17:20

The warlords ARE the mujahideen, or were, FYI.
Most but not all, last I heard. There are some new folks emerging. Naturally, their money comes from drugs.

For the rest of your post, agreed, but it's fantasy-land, so there ain't much point to it.

The Wizard

02-11-2010, 17:22

al Roumi

02-12-2010, 16:32

I'll admit the last sentence was a (cherished) fantasy, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the post. Surely we don't have to rely so much upon corrupt, backstabbing warlords who take our money with one hand and undermine our efforts with the other? Seems more like a case of extremely bad decision-making and political cowardice, to me. Just like supporting Diem in Vietnam.

As surprising as it may sound, these are no longer the days when Western countries can simply invade, occupy and subdue a country -if they ever could.

Even the US cannot afford the cost (mostly political, but also economic) of a protracted occupation of a foreign country. They have to work through local proxies. Unfortunately the underlying shared interest of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't mean shared goals once "the enemy" is pegged back a step or two. Karzai's government is corrupt and reviled by Afghans, but I bet they would prefer that to direct rule by the USA or a UN or NATO representative. You are also forgetting that Karzai did actually win Presidential re-election, by a safe margin that even the UN & EU observers couldn't whittle down far enough to make Dr Abdullah Abdullah a credible alternative to Afghans.

The Wizard

02-12-2010, 16:42

We did it in Bosnia, we can do it in Afghanistan.

You make a good point, though. In the past, you see, European powers didn't feel limited by any kind of compassion or demand for fair treatment of non-Western combatants or civilians. I mean, if the NATO just up and copied the British approach to the Second Boer War, we'd be home by Christmas, so to speak. Sadly for purely military purposes (as opposed to humanitarian or democratic ones), that is no longer possible a century later.

Still though. I refuse to accept that all we have is warlords and an ineffective, increasingly dishonest and corrupt president to work with. This was not the case in Vietnam, nor can it be in A-stan. Going by simple logic, there ought to be plenty of Afghans out there willing to stand up for their country with the political and intellectual baggage needed.

And as for Karzai's "reelection", AFAIK the only reason it didn't come to a second try was because Abdullah pulled out. Kind of like Iran right now, only with less oppression. Oh, the joy.

Lemur

02-13-2010, 03:56

Let's all have a big cup of hot, steaming reality (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/seven.htm):

Logistics into Afghanistan is a nightmare, and it only gets worse after you cross the border from the north or from Pakistan. By comparison, Iraq “logs” was like a run to a convenience store down the road. Afghan logs are more like driving from Miami to Seattle for grocery shopping, and then driving the groceries back to Miami while under threat of attack. Not a speck of exaggeration in that statement. Enemy logs interdiction was a large constituent of the Soviet defeat, despite that the Soviet Union comprised the entire northern border of Afghanistan. When the Soviet hammer tried to crack the Afghan rock, the hammer shattered. The Soviets can easily put people in space and keep them there, but they couldn’t handle backdoor logistics during their Afghan war. It’s easier to keep people in space than to supply our war here.

Our Coalition is stunningly more effective at logistics than were the Soviets. For instance, when the British were resupplying small FOBs near Sangin last year—just a short drive from the origin at Camp Bastion—the monthly convoys were major operations that drained needed combat power, and still vehicles were destroyed with casualties. So powerful are some of the bombs that they can launch the ultra-armored American MRAPs into the air, flipping them like turtles, often breaking the backs of soldiers. Even today, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is making moves to facilitate allies to get more counter-IED gear, such as MRAPs, which seems like a good move because some allies are risk-averse to the point of being ineffective (not that MRAPs are going to save them). By air, when a civilian helicopter was trying to resupply at Sangin, it was shot down just outside the base, killing the crew and at least one child on the ground. Make no mistake: this is a worthy enemy.

rory_20_uk

02-13-2010, 11:21

Afghansitan has no infrastructure, no government that we are not keeping in place and no alternative that is more than regional.

IS there a country there at all outside the international maps? I think not. So it disintegrates into smaller states. So what? It's a massive state. Belgium survived as a small, weak, pointless blot on the map.

Compared to Europe they're in the 16th-17th century with modern guns. The state has to be forged by them, not imposed by us. OK, as in the 16th-17th Europe, we can fix the dice, but not create the whole game

~:smoking:

The Wizard

02-13-2010, 20:43

[...]

I'm well aware of this. All the more reason to put more troops on the ground, LOL

Also, "no infrastructure" is taking it a few steps too far. All of us have this image of Afghanistan as some kind of medieval :daisy:hole where the only means of transport are donkeys and camels. Even me: last week I was surprised to read there was an important mountain tunnel north of Kabul that had been closed off due to avalanches. Wait... tunnels? In Afghanistan? Whoa, they can actually build those? ~:rolleyes:

Aemilius Paulus

02-13-2010, 22:07

Wait... tunnels? In Afghanistan? Whoa, they can actually build those? ~:rolleyes:
LOL, epic burn coming up...

Yeah, it is called the Salang tunnel and the Ruskies you hate so much :tongue: built it...

Did you honestly think the Afghans could build something like that? :rolleyes: (it is sad, but I am actually serious here...)

It is sad, but before the Americans came, basically almost anything that large was built by the Soviets the Afghans and Americans fought so hard to keep out. Talk about irony. Really, I do believe the Soviet rule in Afghanistan would have done much good, but not at the cost of a war to institute that rule.

Afghanistan really is a Mediaeval place... Their tribal organisation and deep vendettas coupled with powerlessness of the gov't and the lawlessness do create rather very inhospitable conditions for any development.

Centurion1

02-14-2010, 01:41

Their entire nation has never been developed. Ever. Attempts have been made but all have failed. Many people think that if the US pours enough money in we could just create an infrastructure. It is really not that easy. Certain steps and measures have to be taken beyond mere infrastructure building. for example, the American governemnt needs to find a president that can stand without us controlling the puppet strings. I think 99% of american soldiers who go to afghanistan experience the most severe case of culture shock possible.

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 20:07

LOL, epic burn coming up...

Yeah, it is called the Salang tunnel and the Ruskies you hate so much :tongue: built it...

Did you honestly think the Afghans could build something like that? :rolleyes: (it is sad, but I am actually serious here...)

It is sad, but before the Americans came, basically almost anything that large was built by the Soviets the Afghans and Americans fought so hard to keep out. Talk about irony. Really, I do believe the Soviet rule in Afghanistan would have done much good, but not at the cost of a war to institute that rule.

Afghanistan really is a Mediaeval place... Their tribal organisation and deep vendettas coupled with powerlessness of the gov't and the lawlessness do create rather very inhospitable conditions for any development.

USAID actually built quite a few things in Afghanistan before Ivan's friends in the Democratic Republic popped up. Like Marjah, an agricultural project in the arid south of A-stan which NATO is ironically currently trying to capture from Taliban.

My point wasn't really that the Afghans can build anything though, bud, so your "burn" is misdirected. I was merely pointing out that there actually is infrastructure in Afghanistan. There are roads and there are cars and there are tractors. There are also automatic weapons, lots of them, and they're very well-used, too. But, despite Afghanistan's low level of development, we're not trying to pull a country out of the Stone Age by its hair people, despite all our misconceptions about the Third World. Albania also suffers from "tribal thinking" as you call it, and of course vendettas, but it's not suffering a debilitating civil war either.