Understanding Afghanistan enough to leave

[CBR]

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?


CBR

[Megas Methuselah]

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?


CBR

Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?

Indeed. It's practically a paradise.

Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.

Perhaps because it's not a video game and the bodies are not those of computer sprites? I've lost comrades in war, but wars with a purpose. I fume (freaking out is not something one tends to) at the loss of any soldier for no point.

I'm ready to be convinced by a clear mission statement, a battle plan and measurable milestones for this nation-building operation. So far, in the face of contrary evidence, all I've seen is ad hominems and vague platitudes that all will be well.

Pannonian is doing his usual good job of focussing us on the realpolitik. There is a problem, in that Afghanistan is not a nation in any sense that we understand it, and the Taleban is also somewhat borderless. The Taleban utilise the one unifying factor in that region, militant Islam. This is not a weapon available to NATO. Pakistan is indeed the key to that strand.

Warlordism and tribalism characterises much of the region and the "power" structure of the Taleban - and has done for hundreds of years. It is not a single enemy. This is the point the article was trying to make. Developing a centralised government structure based from Kabul is doomed to failure without imperial levels of troops - and probably not even then (the Russians tried this and came unstuck).

Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?

[Megas Methuselah]

Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?

[CBR]

Indeed. It's practically a paradise.

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

[Kralizec]

The goal is to build up an Afghan government that is not anti-western and wich is eventually capable of sustaining itself without our help. If we leave now it will turn into a second Somalia; a country in anarchy that will be periodically bombed and invaded by other powers to prevent their trouble from crossing the borders. With that in mind I support my country's involvement in Afghanistan.

[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...

[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.

[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?

[rory_20_uk]

Aims of the war:

• To fix a country which has been "broken" for over 500 years, possibly never functioned.
• To get those that caused 9/11... and avoid Saudi Arabia and that most were Saudis.
• To increase safety and try to forget that 7/7 was mainly due to protests about the wars.
• Get Bin Laden as if this will suddenly "win" the conflict

Methods:

• Boots on the ground! Not as many as the commanders want, but surely quality overcomes quantity?
• Not enough helicopters - we'll borrow them when needed
• Inadequate vehicles. We're getting new ones that have thicker armour. Fingers crossed they'll not build bigger bombs...
• Winning hearts and minds by building infrastructure, and
• ... by spraying crops, drone attacks and apologies for killing civilians
• An American led, mainly Christian white leaning force in a Middle Eastern / Islamic state - but NOT a Crusade, OK?
• Capture, hold, build, media take pictures with smiling locals, leave, Taliban bomb. Repeat until budget runs out.

So, as can be seen, we are not aiming to return to a previous state, but trying to build one. We have no clear idea of how to do this and don't have enough men to achieve it - if we knew what "it" was.
I realise the cost in human life is compared to most wars is low. However, the ratio of injured to killed is probably higher than ever.

But lives are being lost in a country with no strategic value as is a vast amount of money. Fanatics all over the world are having a causus belli.

If the vast resources (or even a fraction thereof) which are being squandered were used for containment we'd be just as safe. There are still nutters with plans to blow up parts of the UK, so the war isn't stopping this.

Another war that the UK in very different times went into with the phrase "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!"

To update: "we've not the ships, we've not the men and no money too!"

The UK needs to emulate countries such as Australia who are used to not being a big fish, and structure our ambitions and armed forces accordingly.

Our "special relationship" started in WW2 when America bankrupted us. Apparently to continue it we need to continue to throw money and lives at whatever moronic war they embark on.