Understanding Afghanistan enough to leave

As the death toll for British troops in Afghanistan passes their losses in Iraq, Matthew Parris of the Times writes a piece that explains brilliantly why we are wasting their lives.

If someone could actually define the mission there, it might help, but with all the woolly misdirection from politicians married to the inevitable historical and tribal realities, one despairs.

"Sometimes, you have to listen to the mountains.” This was quoted to us journalists in Kabul by Brigadier-General Walter Givehan of the US Forces in Afghanistan, with pride. He uses it as part of his mission statement: a reminder, he said, always to be alert to one’s environment and ready to hear the lessons it may teach.

So, as you shake your head in sorrow at the British soldiers killed there, read a story from the mountains: the jagged brown ridges of Oruzgan, a province adjoining Helmand where I’ve been spending time in a Dutch-Australian military base, Camp Holland. My Australian colleague Brendan Nicholson, of the Melbourne Age, and I heard about the story, and did some digging.

Bear with my tale. Its very intricacy is important. This is the story of three men: Jan Mohamed Khan, Rozi Khan and Mohamed Daoud. The two Khans are not related.

It is time to "Listen to the mountains". The only reason to have been there at all was to capture/kill Bin Laden & Company. The rest is a waste of treasure, lives, and time. Get out, now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

It is time to "Listen to the mountains". The only reason to have been there at all was to capture/kill Bin Laden & Company. The rest is a waste of treasure, lives, and time. Get out, now.

---

Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

As the death toll for British troops in Afghanistan passes their losses in Iraq, Matthew Parris of the Times writes a piece that explains brilliantly why we are wasting their lives.

If someone could actually define the mission there, it might help, but with all the woolly misdirection from politicians married to the inevitable historical and tribal realities, one despairs.

"Sometimes, you have to listen to the mountains.” This was quoted to us journalists in Kabul by Brigadier-General Walter Givehan of the US Forces in Afghanistan, with pride. He uses it as part of his mission statement: a reminder, he said, always to be alert to one’s environment and ready to hear the lessons it may teach.

So, as you shake your head in sorrow at the British soldiers killed there, read a story from the mountains: the jagged brown ridges of Oruzgan, a province adjoining Helmand where I’ve been spending time in a Dutch-Australian military base, Camp Holland. My Australian colleague Brendan Nicholson, of the Melbourne Age, and I heard about the story, and did some digging.

Bear with my tale. Its very intricacy is important. This is the story of three men: Jan Mohamed Khan, Rozi Khan and Mohamed Daoud. The two Khans are not related.

---

Banquo, this story seems painful simple and not at all indicative of the possibility of victory or defeat. The Americans did not listen to the mountains, had they done so they would have known that Jan Mohamed Khan was a traitor and not to be trusted. Had they realised this they would have rejected his information and the six chiefs would still have their rightful wealth, power and position.

The Americans seem to court men of dubious moral character because they are more likely to lean towards their democratic and secular agenda; rather than men of honour who might actually hold the country together after they leave.

Jan Mohamed lacked hnour, he should never have been indulged, he should have been shunned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Banquo, this story seems painful simple and not at all indicative of the possibility of victory or defeat. The Americans did not listen to the mountains, had they done so they would have known that Jan Mohamed Khan was a traitor and not to be trusted. Had they realised this they would have rejected his information and the six chiefs would still have their rightful wealth, power and position.

The Americans seem to court men of dubious moral character because they are more likely to lean towards their democratic and secular agenda; rather than men of honour who might actually hold the country together after they leave.

Jan Mohamed lacked hnour, he should never have been indulged, he should have been shunned.

---

The point is that this was one complex story in a country riddled with such. The Americans couldn't possibly have made the right call - no-one from outside could. (Probably no-one outside each tiny regional tribe). The apparent attempt at nation-building is utterly doomed because Afghanistan is not and never will be a nation in the sense that the West thinks of the concept.

The "man of honour" in that story got himself killed, almost certainly in a set-up. Karzai is a crook so of course he is going to back other crooks that he understands. (He's not exactly a poster child for a "democratic and secular agenda" either).

None of this can be reduced to a simple plan of action - other than to accept we cannot understand or influence their world and we should leave.

Going just fine, what exactly is going wrong. Iraq is doing fine, Afghanistan is still a desert below Russia, there is revolution in Iran, what's not to like.

The weak kneed wobbling their knees. No fight is ever worth it with this mentality.

I fret to think what the US would look like if you were in charge during the American Revolution or when nearly all of Europe was occupied when you give up a patch of desert because of a relatively low casualty rate. How about when the South Seceeded? Man, imagine your opposition.

Keep our military active and practiced, even if it costs. The benefits long term will outweigh the cost.

The purpose of going into Afghanistan was to end its status as a terrorism bakery. We've done that to large swathes of the country and are in the process of doing it to other parts. The agenda is there, the force is there and we are doing it. Pressure has finally come from pakistan and land fertile for insurgency is caught in a vice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The point is that this was one complex story in a country riddled with such. The Americans couldn't possibly have made the right call - no-one from outside could. (Probably no-one outside each tiny regional tribe). The apparent attempt at nation-building is utterly doomed because Afghanistan is not and never will be a nation in the sense that the West thinks of the concept.

---

There are more than just "Western" nations. Building a country with relatively just and fair leaders. Even if we do not agree with their beliefs they might be people we can deal with.

Quote:

---

The "man of honour" in that story got himself killed, almost certainly in a set-up. Karzai is a crook so of course he is going to back other crooks that he understands. (He's not exactly a poster child for a "democratic and secular agenda" either).

---

So the Americans put a crook in charge because they didn't want a King, that's Iraq and Iran all over again.

Quote:

---

None of this can be reduced to a simple plan of action - other than to accept we cannot understand or influence their world and we should leave.

---

I think that's defeatest, and frankly wrong. The major problem seems to be a severe lack of intelligence. JMK had betrayed his allies and fought for the Talaban, but the Americans took his word over the loyal chiefs, either because he was "in" with the President, or because they failed to recognise or inquire into the history between these men.

The actual situation seems reasonably explicable, it's just decidedly medieval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Keep our military active and practiced, even if it costs. The benefits long term will outweigh the cost.

---

Yes. And aggressive at that.

If people really believe the Taliban with their control of what is just about the sole heroin provider of the world isn't a threat, they need a shrink specialized in progressive personality disorder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The weak kneed wobbling their knees. No fight is ever worth it with this mentality.

I fret to think what the US would look like if you were in charge during the American Revolution or when nearly all of Europe was occupied when you give up a patch of desert because of a relatively low casualty rate. How about when the South Seceeded? Man, imagine your opposition.

Keep our military active and practiced, even if it costs. The benefits long term will outweigh the cost.

The purpose of going into Afghanistan was to end its status as a terrorism bakery. We've done that to large swathes of the country and are in the process of doing it to other parts. The agenda is there, the force is there and we are doing it. Pressure has finally come from pakistan and land fertile for insurgency is caught in a vice.

---

I like the idea someone suggested of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Taleban and the other power bases in Afghanistan, and having agreed areas where the fighting could take place. They'd be able to govern their territories without undue pressure from us, while having someone to unite against, while we'd have somewhere and someone against whom to exercise our military, without too much side splash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I like the idea someone suggested of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Taleban and the other power bases in Afghanistan, and having agreed areas where the fighting could take place. They'd be able to govern their territories without undue pressure from us, while having someone to unite against, while we'd have somewhere and someone against whom to exercise our military, without too much side splash.

---

No agreements with Taleban. Period. If Taleban leaders want to break away from the organization we can make deals with them. The organization is an entity to be destroyed without exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I like the idea someone suggested of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Taleban and the other power bases in Afghanistan, and having agreed areas where the fighting could take place.

---

Why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

No agreements with Taleban. Period. If Taleban leaders want to break away from the organization we can make deals with them. The organization is an entity to be destroyed without exception.

---

Which is kind of part of the problem we're currently facing. Utterly destroying the Taleban will only be possible with the support of Pakistan, and significant parts of the Pakistan government support the Taleban - indeed, not only the Taleban, but the zealotry of the Taleban. The political objective you describe won't be possible without similarly dealing with Pakistan, and they're too dangerous to mess with. And no, the greatest danger isn't this Pakistani government. The greatest danger is what will probably come after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Which is kind of part of the problem we're currently facing. Utterly destroying the Taleban will only be possible with the support of Pakistan, and significant parts of the Pakistan government support the Taleban - indeed, not only the Taleban, but the zealotry of the Taleban. The political objective you describe won't be possible without similarly dealing with Pakistan, and they're too dangerous to mess with. And no, the greatest danger isn't this Pakistani government. The greatest danger is what will probably come after.

---

Yes but denying them acces to drugmoney so they can buy arms is loco? Rather large budget for those solemnly swearing to be up to no good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yes but denying them acces to drugmoney so they can buy arms is loco? Rather large budget for those solemnly swearing to be up to no good.

---

They need the drugmoney to pay for the war against us. Before we stormed in, they were effective suppressors of the opium economy. Lessen the pressure on them to keep up the arms race, strike up and maintain communication channels with them so we can reach some kind of mutually acceptable accommodations on political issues, then carry on a low intensity war in agreed areas where we won't inconvenience anyone else overmuch. They'll have someone to shoot at, but we're not going to significantly threaten them, so they're happy, while we can keep something of a lid on things, while having somewhere to practice making war, so we're happy. Keep this up long enough, and we can eventually cut out the Pakistani middleman, as the Talebani won't need them for support since we're no longer threatening them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

They need the drugmoney to pay for the war against us.

---

It has kinda been there for a while you know, the golden triangle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It has kinda been there for a while you know, the golden triangle.

---

Newyorker

The Taliban instituted a strict Islamist policy against the opium trade during the final years of their regime, and by the time of their overthrow they had virtually eliminated it. But now, Lieutenant General Mohammad Daud-Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy minister of the interior for counter-narcotics, told me, “there has been a coalition between the Taliban and the opium smugglers. This year, they have set up a commission to tax the harvest.” In return, he said, the Taliban had offered opium farmers protection from the government’s eradication efforts. The switch in strategy has an obvious logic: it provides opium money for the Taliban to sustain itself and helps it to win over the farming communities.

From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003

Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.

Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.

has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

It is time to "Listen to the mountains". The only reason to have been there at all was to capture/kill Bin Laden & Company.

---

Yes. But.

The but is the notion that as soon as the troops leave, the Taleban will move back in and start plotting 9/11's again. So the troops stayed until a stable and democratic Afghanistan without Taleban could be formed. This standard was set too high.

As we are now slowly giving up on the illusion of leaving behind a democratic Afghanistan, the question becomes: what is the lowest standard of people we are willing to deal with that can form some kind of stable Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.

---

Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran. :wall: There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran. :wall: There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.

---

i think tribalism plays a huge part in whether it fails or not. Afghanistan is probably one of the best places to see tribalism in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Newyorker

The Taliban instituted a strict Islamist policy against the opium trade during the final years of their regime, and by the time of their overthrow they had virtually eliminated it. But now, Lieutenant General Mohammad Daud-Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy minister of the interior for counter-narcotics, told me, “there has been a coalition between the Taliban and the opium smugglers. This year, they have set up a commission to tax the harvest.” In return, he said, the Taliban had offered opium farmers protection from the government’s eradication efforts. The switch in strategy has an obvious logic: it provides opium money for the Taliban to sustain itself and helps it to win over the farming communities.

From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003

Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.

Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.

---

One link would do to slap me around

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes. But.

The but is the notion that as soon as the troops leave, the Taleban will move back in and start plotting 9/11's again. So the troops stayed until a stable and democratic Afghanistan without Taleban could be formed. This standard was set too high.

As we are now slowly giving up on the illusion of leaving behind a democratic Afghanistan, the question becomes: what is the lowest standard of people we are willing to deal with that can form some kind of stable Afghanistan?

---

We're looking at things the wrong way. The biggest danger in the region isn't Afghanistan, but Pakistan. Instead of using Pakistan to help solve Afghanistan, we should be looking to use Afghanistan to solve Pakistan. Get some kind of agreement with the Talebani nuts so they can be secure in their independence, without depending on the Pakistani nuts for survival. The danger might be that the Pakistani nuts might turn their attention again to Kashmir if they have no outlet to the north, but my impression is that they're drawing strength from the threat to the Pashtun, and undermining Pakistan's democratic base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?


CBR

---

Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?

---

Indeed. It's practically a paradise. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.

---

Perhaps because it's not a video game and the bodies are not those of computer sprites? I've lost comrades in war, but wars with a purpose. I fume (freaking out is not something one tends to) at the loss of any soldier for no point.

I'm ready to be convinced by a clear mission statement, a battle plan and measurable milestones for this nation-building operation. So far, in the face of contrary evidence, all I've seen is ad hominems and vague platitudes that all will be well.

Pannonian is doing his usual good job of focussing us on the realpolitik. There is a problem, in that Afghanistan is not a nation in any sense that we understand it, and the Taleban is also somewhat borderless. The Taleban utilise the one unifying factor in that region, militant Islam. This is not a weapon available to NATO. Pakistan is indeed the key to that strand.

Warlordism and tribalism characterises much of the region and the "power" structure of the Taleban - and has done for hundreds of years. It is not a single enemy. This is the point the article was trying to make. Developing a centralised government structure based from Kabul is doomed to failure without imperial levels of troops - and probably not even then (the Russians tried this and came unstuck).

Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?

---

:bow:

Aims of the war:

• To fix a country which has been "broken" for over 500 years, possibly never functioned.
• To get those that caused 9/11... and avoid Saudi Arabia and that most were Saudis.
• To increase safety and try to forget that 7/7 was mainly due to protests about the wars.
• Get Bin Laden as if this will suddenly "win" the conflict

Methods:

• Boots on the ground! Not as many as the commanders want, but surely quality overcomes quantity?
• Not enough helicopters - we'll borrow them when needed
• Inadequate vehicles. We're getting new ones that have thicker armour. Fingers crossed they'll not build bigger bombs...
• Winning hearts and minds by building infrastructure, and
• ... by spraying crops, drone attacks and apologies for killing civilians
• An American led, mainly Christian white leaning force in a Middle Eastern / Islamic state - but NOT a Crusade, OK?
• Capture, hold, build, media take pictures with smiling locals, leave, Taliban bomb. Repeat until budget runs out.

So, as can be seen, we are not aiming to return to a previous state, but trying to build one. We have no clear idea of how to do this and don't have enough men to achieve it - if we knew what "it" was.
I realise the cost in human life is compared to most wars is low. However, the ratio of injured to killed is probably higher than ever.

But lives are being lost in a country with no strategic value as is a vast amount of money. Fanatics all over the world are having a causus belli.

If the vast resources (or even a fraction thereof) which are being squandered were used for containment we'd be just as safe. There are still nutters with plans to blow up parts of the UK, so the war isn't stopping this.

Another war that the UK in very different times went into with the phrase "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!"

To update: "we've not the ships, we've not the men and no money too!"

The UK needs to emulate countries such as Australia who are used to not being a big fish, and structure our ambitions and armed forces accordingly.

Our "special relationship" started in WW2 when America bankrupted us. Apparently to continue it we need to continue to throw money and lives at whatever moronic war they embark on.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Indeed. It's practically a paradise. :dizzy2:

---

If you want a warzone and newly built democracy to be a paradise then I can understand your disappointment.

The main reason why so little has happened for 7 years is that a certain US president thought a two front war was twice as good as a one front war.

Now that USA finally has the troops we see NATO is moving forward.

Currently both the army as well as police forces are expanding and being trained. It is of course a big project that will take time and effort.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us...tary.html?_r=1

I know Danish police officers are participating in the police training and part of that consists of basic stuff like teaching them not to take bribes and acting to help the population instead of just being abusive brutes. In other words a change in culture that will not happen in a few months.

So I really doubt any can provide you with specific time tables except that it looks like a few more years. That of course does not mean losses will stay as high as they have been the last few weeks. Removing the Taliban power base in Afghanistan should go a long way.


CBR

The goal is to build up an Afghan government that is not anti-western and wich is eventually capable of sustaining itself without our help. If we leave now it will turn into a second Somalia; a country in anarchy that will be periodically bombed and invaded by other powers to prevent their trouble from crossing the borders. With that in mind I support my country's involvement in Afghanistan.

June 2009 report to Congress.

I haven't read it yet.

We leave when we meet our objectives. Withdrawing when things get tough reeks of cowardice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

We leave when we meet our objectives. Withdrawing when things get tough reeks of cowardice.

---

Ah, the armchair general...

Considering there was precious cause for going into the country in the first place (if you want one person why not try special forces?) it is less cowardice, more that finally the morons are thinking "oh, perhaps pouring money and lives into this black hole isn't the answer..."

What are the objectives?

Getting Bin Laden?
Defeating the Taliban?
"Resurrecting" the state?
Instigating democracy?

The few who are mentioning what it is are tending to less lofty ideals by the casualty.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

June 2009 report to Congress.

I haven't read it yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Report, page 8

Human rights remain a serious issue in the country. The Shi’a Personal Status Law, signed by President Karzai in March 2009, would have required Shi’a women to have their husband’s permission to leave the house and would have legalized marital rape. After international outcry and strong domestic protest, President Karzai put the law under review to ensure that it is in line with the Afghan constitution and suspended its enforcement.

---

What a gallant man that's in office. :dizzy2:

The Pashtuns really wanted their King back, unfortunatley he was a bit to independent for the Coalition's taste, so we gave them Karzai. A nothing tribal leader who was getting paid by Big Oil prior to this appointment, I suspect he still is.

Now that the old King is dead, and things are not turning out how the idiots in charge thought they shuld, perhaps we should consder the young Pretender to the throne?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

If you want a warzone and newly built democracy to be a paradise then I can understand your disappointment.

The main reason why so little has happened for 7 years is that a certain US president thought a two front war was twice as good as a one front war.

Now that USA finally has the troops we see NATO is moving forward.

Currently both the army as well as police forces are expanding and being trained. It is of course a big project that will take time and effort.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us...tary.html?_r=1

I know Danish police officers are participating in the police training and part of that consists of basic stuff like teaching them not to take bribes and acting to help the population instead of just being abusive brutes. In other words a change in culture that will not happen in a few months.

So I really doubt any can provide you with specific time tables except that it looks like a few more years. That of course does not mean losses will stay as high as they have been the last few weeks. Removing the Taliban power base in Afghanistan should go a long way.


CBR

---

The issue here is that enforcing democracy from the top down won't work. Instead, you need to set the foundations and build up. To have a democracy you need to have a stable economy with strong and numerous middle class and educated population and Afghanistan has neither. Lack of infrastructure and centralised authority makes achieving that even more difficult. Giving their police and army training and modern equipment won't solve those issues.

Talibans are not the issue in Afghanistan. They are simply the manifestation. Even if you remove them completely, some other Talibans will take their place. What Afghanistan needs will take concentrated and systematic effort for decades. Sustainable economy, educated population, centralised authority, proper infrastructure... That can't be achieved with guns and can't be achieved in short time. Leaving before that means simply handing Afghanistan over to some other Talibans.

Problem, of course, is that after many years there hasn't been significant progress in those areas. There are still people who think you can beat an idea with a gun.

so... Despotism it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The issue here is that enforcing democracy from the top down won't work. Instead, you need to set the foundations and build up. To have a democracy you need to have a stable economy with strong and numerous middle class and educated population and Afghanistan has neither. Lack of infrastructure and centralised authority makes achieving that even more difficult. Giving their police and army training and modern equipment won't solve those issues.

Talibans are not the issue in Afghanistan. They are simply the manifestation. Even if you remove them completely, some other Talibans will take their place. What Afghanistan needs will take concentrated and systematic effort for decades. Sustainable economy, educated population, centralised authority, proper infrastructure... That can't be achieved with guns and can't be achieved in short time. Leaving before that means simply handing Afghanistan over to some other Talibans.

Problem, of course, is that after many years there hasn't been significant progress in those areas. There are still people who think you can beat an idea with a gun.

---

Well you cant have armed rebels either to even start a process to achieve the goals you mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Well you cant have armed rebels either to even start a process to achieve the goals you mentioned.

---

That would be logical way of thinking but nothing about Afghanistan is logical. You're not fighting an army that can be defeated in the field. You kill 10 terrorist, another 10 is recruited to take their place, you destroy one terrorist camp two new are set up.

You have to do both at the same time and you have to make development of Afghanistan a priority. Armed forces, both western and Afghan, should protect that development. That must be their primary mission, not destruction of the Talibans. That doesn't means just passive defense, of course. By developing Afghanistan, you're undermining their strength, their recruiting capabilities.

You can not defeat the Talibans. Talibans are just an expression of militant Islam, and in a country where poverty and illiteracy rule, where most of the territory is controlled by various tribes and warlords, Islam is the strongest unifying factor. If you don't remove that, you've done nothing. You've wasted yours and theirs lives and the security you've bought with those lives is only short-term.

There should be a fundamental change in strategy, where development of Afghanistan is a priority. Not nearly enough has been done so far, you could say that it was almost completely neglected in favour of a hard-line military solution which produced little results. Now, this runs completely opposite of the idea behind the invasion which was "we'll be in and out quickly, defeat the Talibans and capture Bin Laden and we're home victorious". Now someone needs to say that it was a failure, that a fundamental change is needed and that it will take decades. I don't see Obama ready to say that and change strategy accordingly.

Let's hope I'm wrong and that this administration focus on Afghanistan will give results but I don't see that happening. Not without radical changes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

The Pashtuns really wanted their King back, unfortunatley he was a bit to independent for the Coalition's taste, so we gave them Karzai. A nothing tribal leader who was getting paid by Big Oil prior to this appointment, I suspect he still is.

Now that the old King is dead, and things are not turning out how the idiots in charge thought they shuld, perhaps we should consder the young Pretender to the throne?

---

Much as this has the whiff of British Colonialism about it, it has to be said that the Americans in particular seem to prefer a Dictator to a King every time, refusing to allow Germany to capitulate in WWI is a great example of this shortsightedness.

Perhaps the Chiefs should be offered their King?

Afghanistan is a disaster because NATO is too proud to call for Russian help in the area. Russians and Afghan communists are the best partners for the coalition.
A mildly communist or Russian-influienced Afghanistan is better than 1000 coalition casualties.
The morale of the story here is that Americans shold always remain within thier sphere of influience and not stretch that baloon to much.

Surrender the goal of creating Amerika 2 and invite the Russians over for a Vodka buffet with appologies for the last Russian-Afghan War. 9/11 is the consequence of NATO vs. USSR secret wars and that strggle clearly created mutants (like the Taleban government). So NATO has to either accept Russian power or lose lives.

Russia is the ideal power to control Afghanistan. They've been fighting Moslem terrorists since the USSR and have much more skill in regards to Afghanistan. They also have the right geopolitical influience in the area to ensure a stable regime. Their anti-terrorism is eqal to that of the United States. They also have the right partnerships with Iran, Pakistan and Central Asian republics. The United States has none of this.

But the gas pipeline is too valuable to be given on a silver platter for the Bors-eaters.....so it's a matter of ego rather than anything else.

The Russians know what happened last time they were in the area, and they also know how much MI6 / CIA et al helped them loose. Help us? Fat chance.

The area has no real strategic worth. Russia has enough problems with Georgia and Chechnya without biting off a bigger disaster area.

We should be investing money in surveillance both on the ground and from above and if required surgical strikes with small teams on very specific missions mainly along the lines of killing key terrorists or gaining very important intelligence, not trying to build structures that can survive increasingly large explosive devices under roads.

There might be camps in Afghanistan. Possibly. Equally there might be them in any middle eastern country you care to name. They're low tech and easy to build. my guess is they have more mud brick buildings than we have smart bombs.

When we go into the area we're fighting on their terms. Our supply is stretched. We can't tell friend from foe easily and there's clan loyalty as well. If or when their operatives decide to venture out they're up against a cultural and language barrier, having to rely on contacts who might be either monitored or double agents. This might in turn give us more insight into what is going on since they have to communicate over longer distances.

Let the Taliban have their small empire and pretend that it's 1490, or let the locals sort it out.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Lack of infrastructure and centralised authority makes achieving that even more difficult. Giving their police and army training and modern equipment won't solve those issues.

---

So building/repairing roads or infrastructure and getting girls back into schools does not count? We cannot force them to keep the democracy but we can provide them with the tools so they at least have a chance.

Security is a big issue so a well sized army is needed to protect the many villages that are exposed to the Taliban. Militant Islam is not an option and, as Afghanistan so far has not broken down in a massive rebellion in favor of Taliban, I assume a majority of the population does not see it as an option either. Sometimes a big gun is indeed needed to fight off the bad guy.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

So building/repairing roads or infrastructure and getting girls back into schools does not count? We cannot force them to keep the democracy but we can provide them with the tools so they at least have a chance.

Security is a big issue so a well sized army is needed to protect the many villages that are exposed to the Taliban. Militant Islam is not an option and, as Afghanistan so far has not broken down in a massive rebellion in favor of Taliban, I assume a majority of the population does not see it as an option either. Sometimes a big gun is indeed needed to fight off the bad guy.


CBR

---

I think you misunderstood me. My opinion is not that nothing was done to develop Afghanistan but that not enough was done. That should have been a priority. Instead the emphasis was on military solution to the problem.

Accepting that means admitting that it will take many years until coalition forces can leave Afghanistan which is not acceptable to most politicians. So, they're still emphasizing military solution in hope it will allow them to finish the job in relatively short time. In my opinion that seem hardly likely, since even if you defeat Talibans, you haven't defeated militant Islam and you'll have some other group taking their place.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is a first world country. Saddam was what he was but religious fundamentalism was under control, there was centralized government and state apparatus was largely functioning. Also, there are no easy revenues (oil) for Afghanistan. That makes the job much harder.

Ah OK then. Yes I agree that Afghanistan was left to rot for a long time as USA went for Iraq. The troop needed for security were not there to control the whole country and that is why we are now seeing heavy combat in the southern areas.

The money that so many countries promised have AFAIK remained as empty promises, but that is some time ago I read that so it might have changed.

Yes is a few ways it is easier than Iraq and in other ways much more difficult. But giving up now is IMO rather silly as we have hardly given it a chance, as it has (unfortunately) been such a low priority mission. That will hopefully change now that USA can ship more troops in.


CBR

Some duders here want just that, that we leave Afghanistan, because I don't know, maybe because we got like 20 casualties overall, or at least I haven't heard about more in the media.
I think we gave quite a few afghanis quite a lot of hope, we presented ourselves as their saviours, the people who came to give them a chance etc. we'd be a bunch of :daisy: to go away now and leave them at the mercy of the Taliban.

Afghanistan doesn't need more infrastructure, it needs more Toyotas and gas stations. And more camels from Mithrandir's stables but Australian ones, not the endangered Baktrian kind.
A single Toyota is better than 100 km of tarmac for the region.With the right tires, the Toyota can easy tackle any kind of terrain, including the desert we call Afghanistan.
Build that pipeline with Gazprom and plit it in 3 (Russia 1/3, NATO 1/3 and Karzai the rest).Than start a cars-for-guns program that will ensure any Afghan gets to drive a proper Toyota. Invade the country with drive-in-motels and the crisis is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

So building/repairing roads or infrastructure and getting girls back into schools does not count? We cannot force them to keep the democracy but we can provide them with the tools so they at least have a chance.

Security is a big issue so a well sized army is needed to protect the many villages that are exposed to the Taliban. Militant Islam is not an option and, as Afghanistan so far has not broken down in a massive rebellion in favor of Taliban, I assume a majority of the population does not see it as an option either. Sometimes a big gun is indeed needed to fight off the bad guy.


CBR

---

Just how much of a working democracy do you think you can build in Afghanistan, while the fundies across the border in Pakistan threaten to control the Pakistani government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Just how much of a working democracy do you think you can build in Afghanistan, while the fundies across the border in Pakistan threaten to control the Pakistani government?

---

I can imagine quite a lot actually.

Sure they can cross the border and get into Afghanistan easily perhaps, but as long as they have to do that and have no actual power base within Afghanistan I'd say things are looking pretty fine.

Plus it goes both ways: how cool is it for the Taliban to lose their areas in Afghanistan? It is hardly gonna strengthen their hold in Pakistan.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I can imagine quite a lot actually.

Sure they can cross the border and get into Afghanistan easily perhaps, but as long as they have to do that and have no actual power base within Afghanistan I'd say things are looking pretty fine.

Plus it goes both ways: how cool is it for the Taliban to lose their areas in Afghanistan? It is hardly gonna strengthen their hold in Pakistan.


CBR

---

It does actually. Whenever the Pakistani government gives in to American pressure and does something vaguely anti-Taliban, the pro-Taliban elements threaten to topple the government, and the government, to keep itself alive, moves closer towards Talibanic fundamentalism. A while ago, they were suggesting moving to Sharia as the default legal system in Pakistan, in order to stop the fundies from taking over.

Yeah but I do believe drones crossing into Pakistani airspace and dumping missiles on Taliban positions is causing most of the trouble.

Edit: Didn't Pakistan give them (limited?) Sharia law in some province not long ago. Which just escalated when they wanted more?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Afghanistan doesn't need more infrastructure, it needs more Toyotas and gas stations. And more camels from Mithrandir's stables but Australian ones, not the endangered Baktrian kind.
A single Toyota is better than 100 km of tarmac for the region.With the right tires, the Toyota can easy tackle any kind of terrain, including the desert we call Afghanistan.
Build that pipeline with Gazprom and plit it in 3 (Russia 1/3, NATO 1/3 and Karzai the rest).Than start a cars-for-guns program that will ensure any Afghan gets to drive a proper Toyota. Invade the country with drive-in-motels and the crisis is over.

---

Russia isn't willing to be a strategic partner with the West, and not with America in particular. Killing a political dissident in London proved that. Therefore, Western and NATO strategic planning should look to hamstring Russia as much as possible.

As to your Toyota idea, I think you under-estimate the Afgan mountains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Yeah but I do believe drones crossing into Pakistani airspace and dumping missiles on Taliban positions is causing most of the trouble.

Edit: Didn't Pakistan give them (limited?) Sharia law in some province not long ago. Which just escalated when they wanted more?


CBR

---

The trouble came when the US demanded that Pakistan stop harbouring or even actively helping the Taliban, which led to some limited troop movements on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. This provoked outrage in the more Talibanic provinces, which were already strongly anti-American and pro-Taliban, as well as other areas, which weren't too fond of the US either. Thus, as a result of American pressure on Pakistan to do something, the Pakistani populace moved towards the Taliban. Following this, the Pakistani government suggested making Sharia the default law of Pakistan, since this was what the Pakistani people were moving towards, in order to forestall the actual Talibanic political groups from gaining power.

You may think differently, but for me, fundies taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is far more worrying than a continued Taliban presence in Afghanistan.

I guess there could be a civil war but I doubt the extremists will ever get their slimy hands on the nukes there.

I think some of the Pashtuns did kick out local Talibans last year but I don't know how widespread it is. The fighting in Swat should be considered a success for the government but how popular was it?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I guess there could be a civil war but I doubt the extremists will ever get their slimy hands on the nukes there.

I think some of the Pashtuns did kick out local Talibans last year but I don't know how widespread it is. The fighting in Swat should be considered a success for the government but how popular was it?


CBR

---

The Battles in Swat are really considered a resounding political victory for Pakistan, since Zardari baited the Taliban into accepting a peace treaty, and fully expecting them to rebuff it (which allowed the populace to realize the Taliban cannot be reasoned with). This has only further alienated the people of Pakistan, since they really do not want, nor think any sort of religious war is necessary. If it's not popular with the people they're trying to enlist, they cannot expect to gain any reasonably solid foothold in the region, hence Pakistan's recent military successes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

...since Zardari baited the Taliban into accepting a peace treaty, and fully expecting them to rebuff it (which allowed the populace to realize the Taliban cannot be reasoned with).

---

That was also my impression from my limited reading about the subject.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Much as this has the whiff of British Colonialism about it, it has to be said that the Americans in particular seem to prefer a Dictator to a King every time, refusing to allow Germany to capitulate in WWI is a great example of this shortsightedness.

Perhaps the Chiefs should be offered their King?

---

It's nothing of he sort, the old King was exactly whom we didn't want in power, he had ideas.
The Pashtuns wanted him, we should havegiven them him, now we should see if we can make do wth the heir apparent.

Either way, Karzai should be gotten rid of, he's a useless tosser.

No surprises, Frag and Vlad both talking relative nonsense.

So BG without referencing the US military archives on what to do and what not to do in Afghanistan can you in simple terms explain why the ongoing operations are thoroughly banjaxed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The apparent attempt at nation-building is utterly doomed because Afghanistan is not and never will be a nation in the sense that the West thinks of the concept.

---

Never is a long time, as indefinite as the commitment appears to be at this moment. But precisely because Afghanistan is in no sense a coherent, stable nation, I agree with the Gruffster that "we" have to stay there until the region is no longer a hotbed of international terrorism. The purpose was never to build a fully functioning democracy there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The purpose of going into Afghanistan was to end its status as a terrorism bakery. We've done that to large swathes of the country and are in the process of doing it to other parts. The agenda is there, the force is there and we are doing it. Pressure has finally come from Pakistan and land fertile for insurgency is caught in a vice.

---

Let's hope the insurgents can be banjaxed into submission soon, to paraphrase Mr Tribesman. Soldiers are often worse idiots than politicians and when it comes to Afghanistan the two categories have been competing for the raspberry award. But I am not sure I would do a better job myself, to put it mildly. My armchair is patient, unlike Afghan war lords.

Wait? What? Ending Afghanistan's career as a 'terrorism bakery' was/is/will be possible only if Pakistan becomes the main producer of terrorists nutjobs.

First of all, I don't think the main objective is reachable in any way, unless the coallition either:
- bomb Afghanistan to oblivion, kill the whole population with no exception, and make sure no one ever lives here again. Honestly, I hardly see this happening.
- or turn the area into a somewhat stable country, in which the talibans wouldn't be a threat anymore. I'm not even talking about a democracy, but even an enlightened dictatorship would do the job. Thing is, this is even less likely than option #1.

At the moment, Karzai is a tool, the Talibans are still here, holding quite a large part of the country, drug and weapon dealing are becoming the only form of trade in the area, and there's no real authority. Way to go.

Now, obviously, even if it were possible to do something helpful with Afghanistan, we'd still have to deal with Pakistan. And while Afghanistan was ruled by a bunch of religious nutjobs who had no real military power (though they still booted the soviets), Pakistan is a populated country, ruled in large part by a coallition of religious nutjobs and military leaders, who unfortunately own quite a few nukes. Pakistan is also considered as an ally, at least officially by the western world, despite the fact half the country is actually ruled by taliban-like people (the North-Western frontier, Baluchistan, the part of Cashmire owned by Pakistan).
Each time the US bomb some taliban inside Pakistan (which apparently happens quite often), the nutjobs there gain more support, whether it is from the common people or from the army. And as long as Afghani talibans will flee to Pakistan, the US will have to do something.

Basically, while we're all cheering eachothers about Afghanistan, about how leaving now would be lame, the 2nd largest muslim country is on the edge of being taken over or teared apart by Talibans. Pakistani journalists have been saying it for years: the North-Western Frontier and Baluchistan are now 'terrorism bakeries', and probably much larger ones than Afghanistan ever was. But nobody cares, because 'we are gaining the upper hand in Afghanistan'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

[..] the North-Western Frontier and Baluchistan are now 'terrorism bakeries', and probably much larger ones than Afghanistan ever was. But nobody cares, because 'we are gaining the upper hand in Afghanistan'.

---

The Taleban were a Pakistani (ISI) creation in the first place. They are now out of anyone's control, which is the real issue in this war.

Western forces are fighting them in Afghanistan, Pakistan has been coerced into fighting them on Pakistani territory. If the latter campaign fails succeed and the Taleban become a threat to the Pakistani state, western intervention inside Pakistan becomes inevitable.

Your statement that 'nobody cares' is downright nonsense. The whole world is watching these developments and the talebanisation of Waziristan has been in the news for several years now.

Pretty much, we even pay Pakistan to fight them.
What we could do is build a Hadrian's wall/limes at the border to Pakistan so they have more trouble changing countries and can be intercepted when they try to blow a hole into it. Or maybe just minefields. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Pretty much, we even pay Pakistan to fight them.
What we could do is build a Hadrian's wall/limes at the border to Pakistan so they have more trouble changing countries and can be intercepted when they try to blow a hole into it. Or maybe just minefields. :sweatdrop:

---

Given that the Pakistani army and secret services trained and equiped these talibans to fight the soviets and the indians and still largely support them (that is, as long as they keep on fighting with 'foreign opponents' and don't threaten the army itself) I'm not sure that Pakistan will be really effective at fighting its own agents.
Most Pakistani (sp?) generals would probably be willing to give more power to them only to piss off India.

As for them not receiving any attention, I might live in a bubble, but I've never seen any documentary about them. We got a whole bunch of half-arsed media coverage about Afghanistan, and then about Saddam, but Pakistan is pretty much a non-existant topic.
And good luck to the 'coalition' when it will have to deal with Pakistan. They're not even capable of creating peace in an uninhabited desert such as Afghanistan. I'm eagerly waiting to see how they'll handle 170 millions of angry Pakistani.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

And good luck to the 'coalition' when it will have to deal with Pakistan.

---

We've heard that before from defeatists on all of the Lord's continents. It was said in 1991-92 (the intervention in Quwait was 'doomed'), in 1999 (Kosovo), in 2003 (Iraq). The true weakness of Pakistan was mentioned inadvertently in your post: it is called India. Those 170 million Pakistani live in fear of what 1.2 billion Indians might do to their country if and when it is seriously weakened. The main reason why Karachi is cooperating in the fight against the Taleban is that the latter are a threat to the nation´s unity and its position vis a vis India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Given that the Pakistani army and secret services trained and equiped these talibans to fight the soviets and the indians and still largely support them (that is, as long as they keep on fighting with 'foreign opponents' and don't threaten the army itself) I'm not sure that Pakistan will be really effective at fighting its own agents.
Most Pakistani (sp?) generals would probably be willing to give more power to them only to piss off India.

As for them not receiving any attention, I might live in a bubble, but I've never seen any documentary about them. We got a whole bunch of half-arsed media coverage about Afghanistan, and then about Saddam, but Pakistan is pretty much a non-existant topic.
And good luck to the 'coalition' when it will have to deal with Pakistan. They're not even capable of creating peace in an uninhabited desert such as Afghanistan. I'm eagerly waiting to see how they'll handle 170 millions of angry Pakistani.

---

Well, IIRC they talked on the BBC about how the Taliban are killing policemen in many regions of Pakistan and that is making at least the police forces very angry. The army has launched some big offenses into taliban-held regions IIRC, that doesn't really look like they support them a lot anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, IIRC they talked on the BBC about how the Taliban are killing policemen in many regions of Pakistan and that is making at least the police forces very angry. The army has launched some big offenses into taliban-held regions IIRC, that doesn't really look like they support them a lot anymore.

---

Pakistan's secret services are going to be taking the long view and are investing in defence against the worst case scenario of an Indian takeover. I'm sure a few police deaths is a small price to pay. The Army might have a very different take on the situation.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Pakistan's secret services are going to be taking the long view and are investing in defence against the worst case scenario of an Indian takeover. I'm sure a few police deaths is a small price to pay. The Army might have a very different take on the situation.

~:smoking:

---

Why would India try to take over Pakistan as long as Pakistan is backed by the west? And what better way to gain western support than crushing the Taliban?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why would India try to take over Pakistan as long as Pakistan is backed by the west? And what better way to gain western support than crushing the Taliban?

---

Why put all one's eggs into one basket when you don't have to? A loud campaign against the Taliban that kills a few troops and recaptures ground wins support from the west, supplying them keeps them in play for the long term.

The West might suddenly loose interest once the Taliban have been eradicated.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The West might suddenly loose interest once the Taliban have been eradicated.

---

If we're always like that then we can't complain about a lack of cooperation.

We can and we probably would. After the exciting part of a war has blown over we have tended to flit off elsewhere. It's not like we're going to side with Pakistan over India if Afghanistan wasn't an issue.