Afghanistan

**Adrian II** · 05-21-2009, 00:54

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Success really hinges on what Pakistan decides, or can do. If they eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, than they really have nowhere else to hide (save Iran) which is having fits about Afghan refugees crossing their border.

And if they don't eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, Nato will have to do it for them. In which case a certain substance will hit a certain fan, a case for which Mr Obama seems to be preparing quite adequately. I like his style.

**Major Robert Dump** · 05-27-2009, 03:21

The guy Obama canned wasn't doing a bad job at all. It's more of a cosmetic makeover, the new general is more like the old one than not.

**Fixiwee** · 05-27-2009, 15:07

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

The guy Obama canned wasn't doing a bad job at all. It's more of a cosmetic makeover, the new general is more like the old one than not.

What a knock-out argument.

**Major Robert Dump** · 05-30-2009, 07:11

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

What a knock-out argument.

sorry to let you down, I know how lots of you people tune in to the backroom solely to hear my brilliant arguments and wonderful analogies. so I'll go into detail a little more.

I don't know everything, but what I do know is that the junior officer corps of the army is vastly different from the general and field officers, and the unofficial opinion of a vast number of junior officers is that the new general in theater is no more of a counterinsurgency expert than the last. Keep in mind A lot of the junior officers were former enlisted who went to combat and were so disappointed with the leadership (people who are now field level and up) that they decided to become officers.

The mission has pretty much been the same since day one. The only thing thats different now are the numbers: more troops, more money. It's a damn shame, considering had we spent even a fraction of Iraqs funding on Afghanistan we would have cell phone towers, fluid highways, solid power sources and infrasctructure in place, the list goes on and on and on but we can't change the idiot mistakes of our past leaders which brings us to today:

It's cosmetic. New face brings the illusion of new and immediate change, when in fact both generals have a fairly similar leadership style and command philosophy. Whats happening in theater now is exactly what some at the Pentagon and more than a few forced-to-retire DOD officials who were critics of the Bush administration have been saying since late 2006: the poppy yield in 07 and 08 would be huge, which would provide more funds for the Taliban, which means more Taliban with more weapons and more equipment, which means surge in Taliban activity in 09.

Wild card Pakistan notwithstanding, not a lot is going to change without more troops and more money. The majority of the NATO forces in country have jacked up ROEs which pretty much take them out of the fight, which leaves the burden on a few select participants. We need to flood Afghanistan with troops and money because its turning into a logistics war. The meat and potatoes of the war there is mobility, supply and keeping villages fed and protected. This would be a lot easier with better roads, more airstrips, running water and cell phones.

**rory_20_uk** · 05-30-2009, 09:48

Afghanistan is a black hole where time, money, resources and lives will disappear.

There are so many better things to spend money on than waste it on them. Cell phone towers will be bombed, and possibly dams and power sources too (unIslamic). In a world of infinite resources perhaps this is worth it. As it stands the aim should be containment as cheap as possible. Possibly view the place like Japan viewed Manchuria - a good training ground for green troops. Winnable / civilisable? not a chance.

**LittleGrizzly** · 05-30-2009, 12:47

TBH I see taking out Bin Laden to stop Al Qaeda being quite similar to taking out Obama to stop the US military... wouldn't really have much of an effect... the most reason it would change it becase of the new guys policy (for both examples) but i imagine bin laden's no.2 and so on are going to be pretty similar guys...

**KukriKhan** · 05-30-2009, 14:06

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

TBH I see taking out Bin Laden to stop Al Qaeda being quite similar to taking out Obama to stop the US military... wouldn't really have much of an effect... the most reason it would change it becase of the new guys policy (for both examples) but i imagine bin laden's no.2 and so on are going to be pretty similar guys...

You think alQaeda is stoppable? It's a laterally-organized outfit, not a hierarchically-organized one. So, I agree: 'taking out' binLaden won't stop them. But getting him was the sole reason for this entire adventure in the first place.

We had no reason to fight the Taliban, except that they were in charge of the region, and refused to deliver binLaden, who they said was their guest, and therefore protected by them, so we had to go through them to get him. Well, we got the "go through them" bit done, but never accomplished the mission of get-binLaden.

Now that the distraction of Iraq is winding down, war-weary eyes turn to Afghanistan, and folks wonder what we're doing there, still. If the full force (minus nukes) of the militaries of the Western world can't track down and apprehend one guy, it's time to go home, and leave it to the spooks. In my opinion.

Snag Osama, or go home. Building up Afghan infrastructure = not our job. And only facilitates the druglords, warlords and religiouslords there.

**Furunculus** · 06-01-2009, 13:30

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

TBH I see taking out Bin Laden to stop Al Qaeda being quite similar to taking out Obama to stop the US military... wouldn't really have much of an effect... the most reason it would change it becase of the new guys policy (for both examples) but i imagine bin laden's no.2 and so on are going to be pretty similar guys...

i disagree here, as i said in a previous thread about the possible waning of al-quada's influence.

the western representative democracy has no figurehead, and suffers not from the cult of personality.
this cannot be said of al-quada.

knocking of OBL will be a major blow to the perceived virility of al-quada in a way that killing even Saint Obama never would.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-28-2009, 00:10

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And if they don't eradicate the Taliban in Pakistan, Nato will have to do it for them. In which case a certain substance will hit a certain fan, a case for which Mr Obama seems to be preparing quite adequately. I like his style.

You advocate invading Pakistan?

**A Terribly Harmful Name** · 05-28-2009, 00:59

I think the US should invade both Iran and Pakistan. WE have enough military punch to erradicate terrorism, but only if the governments that protect it are erradicated too in a large effort for our safety, which is our primary concern.

**Kadagar_AV** · 05-28-2009, 01:29

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

I think the US should invade both Iran and Pakistan. WE have enough military punch to erradicate terrorism, but only if the governments that protect it are erradicated too in a large effort for our safety, which is our primary concern.

*laughs*

Good one!