"Soviet" solution in Afghanistan?

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?

Quote:

---

an Afghan Joan of Arc

---

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

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

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!!".

And they would be right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

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

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.

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...

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008.

---

Um, yeah, 'cause the Afghanistan front was managed so brilliantly up until then.

[A] new unpublished Army history of the war 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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, yeah, 'cause the Afghanistan front was managed so brilliantly up until then.

---

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 in Afghanistan when Obama took over. Spitefully, 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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Spitefully, 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, but your posting style may mislead those Orgahs who naïvely take you at your word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Edit: If you can frame my motivations, can I take a stab at yours?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.