"Soviet" solution in Afghanistan?

[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?

[CrossLOPER]

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

That's more absent minded stubbornness and callous disregard than resoluteness.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[The Wizard]

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

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

This was an ignorant and utterly useless comment.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This was an ignorant and utterly useless comment.

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

[Lemur]

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

And.... that would hold water if I had argued that everything was Obama's fault. Actually, I've only made five or six posts about the Obama since he's been president - one of which stating my opinion that he wasn't even close to being the worst president we've had so far. Now then, its no secret I'm not a big Obama fan, but "raw hatred"? Hardly. If it is going to be your SOP every time I post something critical of the president to attack your presumptions of my feelings towards him instead of my arguments, just let me know and I won't bother responding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lemur]

And.... that would hold water if I had argued that everything was Obama's fault. Actually, I've only made five or six posts about the Obama since he's been president - one of which stating my opinion that he wasn't even close to being the worst president we've had so far.

Only after my prompting, which was due to the fact that you've been back less than a week, and yet you've managed to post consistently about how much you loathe and disrespect our "failure in chief," to use your words. This may pass as reasoned debate in Beckistan, but it's rather jarring amongst the unconverted. Here's what I think is going on: You've decided that you, personally, are going to be the corrective for insufficient Obama hate in the Backroom. You've decided that you're going to single-handedly restore balance to the force, by consistently bashing the president in every thread and every topic in which you post, whether it makes the smallest amount of sense or not. As for what you actually believe, who knows? I find it impossible to say whether I have heard a single honest opinion out of you ever, given your propensity to game, posture and play to a preconceived narrative.

Now then, its no secret I'm not a big Obama fan, but "raw hatred"? Hardly. If it is going to be your SOP every time I post something critical of the president to attack your presumptions of my feelings towards him instead of my arguments, just let me know and I won't bother responding.

As I said, I have no idea what you actually feel or believe, and I doubt I could ever know given the way you treat debate. However, your current persona consists of virulent, non-stop, frequently non-sensical attacks on President 44. Not to mention publicly praising President Bush as "steadfast," marking your persona as one of the 15% of Americans who believe George W. Bush was a good president.

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

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

Obama unquestionably represents the worst elements of contemporary American politics

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

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

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

If Obama had any backbone [...]

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

[Beskar]

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

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

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

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

[Subotan]

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

Date to start withdrawal != End date

Just pointing that out.

[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.