Understanding Afghanistan enough to leave

[Vladimir]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[seireikhaan]

June 2009 report to Congress.

I haven't read it yet.

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.

[Incongruous]

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?

[Sarmatian]

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.

[Samurai Waki]

so... Despotism it is?

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

[Cronos Impera]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[CBR]

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

[Sarmatian]

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.

[CBR]

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

[Husar]

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 to go away now and leave them at the mercy of the Taliban.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[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?

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

[Pannonian]

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.

[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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[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

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[CBR]

...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

[Incongruous]

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.

[Tribesman]

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?

[Adrian II]

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.

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.

[Meneldil]

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'.

[Adrian II]

[..] 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.