Afghanistan

[Fixiwee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

So what about the numerous people there that are trying to work for their country in a democratic way in order to improve their country, introduce more modern values etc. etc.? Leave them behind to get slaughtered/oppressed by returning taliban and warlords?

The argument that cell phone towers will get bombed might be true, but how will the population react when their perfect new cellphone network gets bombed by their wannabe overlords who they were hiding from NATO all the time? Or are they ALL religious nutters down there?

[Jolt]

Counter-Insurgence experts (Well the enitre Coalition army) could most certainly learn a thing or two from the Portuguese Colonial War. We're the only country to have successfully defeated insurgency in large territorial spaces. That said, in what status is the situation of the Pakistani offensive against the Taliban on their side of the border?

[Incongruous]

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.

The reasosn for invading Afghanistan were many and had been in the pipes for a long time, you guys loved the Taliban while they managed to keep the prospect of a nice little pipeline open.

You were even friends of Osama, I find it increadible that you think you were justified in devastating a country for the sake of catching a man you created...

The Taliban had no way of bringing in Osama, and your government knew it, but that didn't matter because they had lost control and had outlived their use.

Oh and it has been the U.S which has facilitated the druglords, the warlords and the rapists and thugs...

[KukriKhan]

So OK, yeah, sure. Everything wrong with Afghanistan is America's fault.

Do we stay, or do we go, in the Book of Default the Magyar?

[Furunculus]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sure is, I don't think I wrote that the U.S was to blame for everything in Afghanistan, Kukri took up that argument.

Very well then, let me address your points:

The reasosn for invading Afghanistan were many and had been in the pipes for a long time, you guys loved the Taliban while they managed to keep the prospect of a nice little pipeline open.

I certainly don't know of any solid evidence that the Taliban were supported by the US government - except perhaps through studiously ignoring them. Before 9-11 Islamicists barely figured on any administration's radar, which is possibly one reason that 9-11 happened. However, if you have any reliable links, I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

You were even friends of Osama, I find it increadible that you think you were justified in devastating a country for the sake of catching a man you created...

Whilst it is true that bin Laden was funded and trained by the CIA, 9-11 changed everything. Even I think it was acceptable to attack Afghanistan in the hope of destroying his infrastructure and apprehending him. He is, after all, a major war criminal. It is completely unreasonable to think that any country could sustain an attack like 9-11 and not do something immediate and overt to retaliate. No government would have survived such a low-key response, however noble their intention.

In addition, I think you are guilty of some hyperbole - the country is far from being devastated as its exports of opium testify. It has not progressed much, however.

The Taliban had no way of bringing in Osama, and your government knew it, but that didn't matter because they had lost control and had outlived their use.

Whilst the Taliban were pretty much powerless to facilitate President Bush's demands, and those demands were entirely unreasonable in their scope and timetable, said Taliban made it remarkably easy for the bellicose nature of the neo-cons to find expression. If they had possessed the wiles of Pakistan's Musharraf (who was similarly threatened at the time) they would have allowed US troops to conduct a search and destroy mission and gratefully accepted the millions of dollars which would have followed. As with all extremists, however, they were much happier to see their country and countrymen burn for purity's sake.

Oh and it has been the U.S which has facilitated the druglords, the warlords and the rapists and thugs...

Here, we do not substantially disagree. The funding of warlordism is pragmatic, but entirely counter-productive to the stated aim of nation-building. However, nation-building was and remains, a misguided and amorphous aim. When bin Laden eluded capture, the United States and their NATO allies should have quit. The hunt for bin Laden would be better served by special forces infiltrating into Pakistan's North West frontier.

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.

Had bin Laden been killed or captured in the first year, you would have had some point. Al-Qa'eda has always been a hydra-like entity (if entity is the right word) and extremely disparate. It coalesced for a while around the figurehead of bin Laden and the "success" of the 9-11 attacks. Now it has decayed back into lots of local Islamicist groups with differing agendas and bin Laden's demise is largely irrelevant to them.

In the real world, al-Qa'eda is much more useful to the West as a soundbite "black hat" organisation (like SPECTRE but without the ugly women ) rather than being any kind of co-ordinated group whose leadership can be targeted or engaged.