"Soviet" solution in Afghanistan?

[rory_20_uk]

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

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Subotan]

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Lemur]

It is common knowledge that the DoD's "Small Footprint" strategy failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hindsight is 20/20 and sometimes the price of innovation is failure.

Goodness, you're very forgiving and understanding about a demonstrably failed strategy, especially given that it cost American lives, threw away countless opportunities, and given that generals, experts and policy wonks all argued against it from the very beginning. Are you this mellow toward all military cock-ups, or do you sometimes ...

Spitefully, 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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.