"Soviet" solution in Afghanistan?

[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.

[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]

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?

It is because the rest of us already know that Obama is a blessing compared to likes of Bush jr. So he feels the need to keep insulting Obama, so people dislike him, because "that other guy dislikes him".

[PanzerJaeger]

That is indeed an interesting analysis, Lemur. You are just as perceptive as I remember you to be. Needless to say, I disagree.

In any event, I don't believe I'm out on a limb in describing the presidency as a failure so far, or even out of the mainstream. I thought said failure was common knowledge around the Beltway in both right and left-leaning circles, so I don't know why you're so hung up on that. Further, I don't remember ever reading a positive comment you made about GWB. Should I take from that observation that anything you did write about the man came from a hateful and reactionary place?

Out of respect for Brenus and in an effort to stop the thread from drifting even further off topic, I will refrain from the usual point by point. Perhaps another time and place?

To return to the topic at hand, let me ask you if you feel the president's announcement of a withdrawal date in the same speech as he announced his "surge" was a wise decision? And if so, why?

It is because the rest of us already know that Obama is a blessing compared to likes of Bush jr. So he feels the need to keep insulting Obama, so people dislike him, because "that other guy dislikes him".

At least Lemur has some history with me to draw on, but who exactly are you to draw inferences about my motivations?

My opinions are not uncommon. In fact, I share them with about half the country if polls are to be believed. Are you guys living in a bubble that the general dissatisfaction with Obama has not yet penetrated?

[Aemilius Paulus]

My opinions are not uncommon. In fact, I share them with about half the country if polls are to be believed. Are you guys living in a bubble that the general dissatisfaction with Obama has not yet penetrated?

Mmm, how so? Not approving is quite common. Loathing or thrashing so relentlessly and zealously is another deal. And this is coming from a Republican-turned-Democrat who thinks Dubya was an OK President if not for his decision to invade Iraq (that would be me).

Not to mention, Obama would be far more popular if the GOP did not adopt the ludicrous "NO" strategy which is nearly unprecedented arrogance not to mention, the epitome of unconstructive attitudes. At least the GOP mostly stopped spreading the nasty rumours which floated around during the elections and the first month of Obama's Presidency *death panels, communism - shudder*

[Beskar]

My opinions are not uncommon. In fact, I share them with about half the country if polls are to be believed. Are you guys living in a bubble that the general dissatisfaction with Obama has not yet penetrated?

It is called "The World" and we in "The World" like Obama.

In particular, Europe.

[PanzerJaeger]

Mmm, how so? Not approving is quite common. Loathing or thrashing so relentlessly and zealously is another deal. And this is coming from a Republican-turned-Democrat who thinks Dubya was an OK President if not for his decision to invade Iraq (that would be me).

Not to mention, Obama would be far more popular if the GOP did not adopt the ludicrous "NO" strategy which is nearly unprecedented arrogance not to mention, the epitome of unconstructive attitudes. At least the GOP mostly stopped spreading the nasty rumours which floated around during the elections and the first month of Obama's Presidency *death panels, communism - shudder*

Rasmussen has today's "Strongly Disapprove" number at 40%. Consider me there.

And yes, it is generally the opposition party that drives... well... opposition to the ruling party and its leader. Somewhat unique to Obama is the amount of grassroots opposition his policies have elicited, separate from GOP efforts. They're trying their hardest now to catch up to it.

[Furunculus]

It is called "The World" and we in "The World" like Obama.

In particular, Europe.

the world doesn't matter, americans matter.

[Beskar]

the world doesn't matter, americans matter.

Praise our American Overlords!

[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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Rasmussen has today's "Strongly Disapprove" number at 40%. Consider me there.

Yeah, 'cause a bloke who made this polling organisation was on the Bush campaign team, and there is no way he can twist data (I am only half-joking here)... The fact that conservatives always like to quote Ramsunssen does not help either. Normally people try to pick more neutral pollsters...

I mean, I think the idea of 'balanced news' is rubbish, as news reporting is naturally slanted on on or the other side, but polling organisation should always strive to be neutral. The wording of the questions is everything in a poll. Especially when people are so contradictory - most Americans cringe at large defence spending cuts, education cuts, cuts for medical research foundations, cuts for scholarships, cuts for energy subsidies (outside of US) but when asked if the favour tight budgets, they all wax lyrical on fiscal conservatism...

[Subotan]

Would you consider the BBC to be neutral?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Would you consider the BBC to be neutral?

As good as they [news companies] get, yes. BBC is focused on international coverage more so than any other news organisation that focuses strongly on both domestic and international reader markets IMHO (which excludes the purely international propaganda organisations, such as VOA [US] or PressTV [Iran] or RT [Russia])

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah, 'cause a bloke who made this polling organisation was on the Bush campaign team, and there is no way he can twist data (I am only half-joking here)... The fact that conservatives always like to quote Ramsunssen does not help either. Normally people try to pick more neutral pollsters...

I mean, I think the idea of 'balanced news' is rubbish, as news reporting is naturally slanted on on or the other side, but polling organisation should always strive to be neutral. The wording of the questions is everything in a poll. Especially when people are so contradictory - most Americans cringe at large defence spending cuts, education cuts, cuts for medical research foundations, cuts for scholarships, cuts for energy subsidies (outside of US) but when asked if the favour tight budgets, they all wax lyrical on fiscal conservatism...

If you have a specific issue with Rasmussen's methods, I'm all ears. The only issue I have heard about is the claim that by polling "likely voters" instead of the general public, Rasmussen somehow gets a disproportionate amount of white people, who as a voting block, are less favorable towards Obama. Be that as it may, I believe they have been pretty accurate in past elections.

Regardless, my point was not in a specific number(it changes daily), but in the fact that there is a large percentage of people that strongly disapprove of the president, of which I am a part. Unless you have reason to believe that Rasmussen is completely off the mark on that, by more than a few percentage points either way, I think the point I was making stands.

[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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

If you have a specific issue with Rasmussen's methods, I'm all ears. The only issue I have heard about is the claim that by polling "likely voters" instead of the general public, Rasmussen somehow gets a disproportionate amount of white people, who as a voting block, are less favorable towards Obama. Be that as it may, I believe they have been pretty accurate in past elections.

Ouch (God, I sure love this tongue smilie, don't I?) But look, I as long-winded I am, and as much as I love to write long posts, I will not trawl through the Internet copy+pasting criticisms of the methods... I mean, I am too lazy and you can do it since it is you who has yet to discover this knowledge.

Regardless, my point was not in a specific number(it changes daily), but in the fact that there is a large percentage of people that strongly disapprove of the president, of which I am a part. Unless you have reason to believe that Rasmussen is completely off the mark on that, by more than a few percentage points either way, I think the point I was making stands.

A wise point - I was so carried away with bashing Rasmusen (well-deserved bashing IMNSHO ) that I forgot that whether Rasmussen is correct or not, they are close.

I still wanna hear the question they asked though - that would be nice .

[Lemur]

A wise point - I was so carried away with bashing Rasmusen (well-deserved bashing IMNSHO ) that I forgot that whether Rasmussen is correct or not, they are close.

Hmm, I'm not a serious poll-smoker like CA, but even I have heard that Ramussen tends to be the outlier, for whatever reason.

I segregate out Rasmussen's approval numbers from the other polls because they've been very different from the rest, generally showing disapproval scores about 10 points higher than the other agencies and approval scores a couple of points lower. Unlike with horse race polling, where all the pollsters are ultimately subject to a pop quiz in the form of an election, there is no obvious way to validate whether an approval poll is right or wrong. That makes it particularly important to pay attention to house effects. Rasmussen's approval ratings for Obama have been different from the other agencies, and/but, they've been consistently and predictably different. In any event, both the Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen data series ultimately show the same pattern: Obama's disapproval ratings have increased over time.

To return to the topic at hand, let me ask you if you feel the president's announcement of a withdrawal date in the same speech as he announced his "surge" was a wise decision? And if so, why?

The president is playing to multiple audiences, not least of which is the corrupt froth at the top of the current Kharzai government. And I have to take issue with your blank assertion that "the Taliban thinks in generational terms." Care to back that up, given that the Taliban has only existed as a notable force since 1994? How do you support the notion that we're dealing with a multi-generational long-game mastermind group when they've only been a player for sixteen years, the last seven of which they spent out of power? Non sequitur; it does not follow.

My personal opinion is that Obama & Co. were seeking leverage with the existing/emergent power structures in Afghanistan, and the delay had nothing to do with the ostensible policy review. There are a lot of corrupt, crafty fellows in Afghanistan, and telling them that we're going to write a blank check and underwrite their security indefinitely gives them so many angles ... it's enough to make an honest grifter drool. As anyone who has read anything on the subject of CI warfare can tell you, attempting to tamp down an insurgency without a legitimate parnter is exactly as productive as plowing the sea.

So let's look at the angles. We're committed, and any attempt to remove support will result in massive political backlash at home and amongst allies. The Afghans know this; they are not stupid. So what impetus do they have to clean up their act, or take their security into their own hands? Why should they take on the hard, unrewarding work of governing when they could just loot like everyone else has done for the last sixty-odd years? Why should they bother to build roads and secure villages if they have an infinite credit card with Uncle Sam's name on it? Getting leverage with the warlordocracy is non-trivial.

So President 44 holds off, and even suggests that he might withdraw. If you followed events in 'Stan during the time, this had something of a focusing, bullying effect on Kharzai and his cronies. Which was a good thing. Now we announce that we're going to up the ante and pour in more troops, but it will not be indefinite. A beginning date for drawdown is given, which, as another poster pointed out in a flash of blinding obviousness, is not the same as a date for withdrawal. (To flog the obvious horse: I can start leaving your house at any time I like; when I actually leave is a whole 'nother matter.)

Your alternative? Are we to underwrite Kharzai and the crazy-quilt patchwork of local warlords indefinitely? Should we annex Afghanistan and make it the 51st state? Given that almost all AQ activity has moved to Pakistan, why would we do this? Moreover, are we to invade, secure and rebuild every failed Muslim nation? If no, why not?

You post a strange mixture of total forgiveness for strategic transgressions made by the previous administration, a seeming total lack of understanding of the complexity of the situation on the ground, a willingness to condemn every diplomatic and military choice made by the current administration, and a series of slogans instead of any vision of how we should proceed in Afghanistan.

If you have a realistic notion of how we should proceed in the Graveyard of Empire, let's hear it.

[The Wizard]

Erm, Lemur, we basically prop up the entire career of Karzai. Who's to say we can't end it, too? Why not remind the idiot of it? The first step to securing the unending loyalty and support of every Afghan is to take a broomstick and clear out the horrid pigsty of corruption and warlords that is the Afghan government at this point.

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

Trust me pal, it doesn't take that long to think up an appropriate reply to you

[Lemur]

Erm, Lemur, we basically prop up the entire career of Karzai. Who's to say we can't end it, too?

And replace him with what? The monarchy is a spent force. The Talibs aren't exactly our friends, but they have the backing of the ISI, which means they keep going. None of the old-school mujahedeen have a national base. None of the warlords, either. Mebbe you know something I don't (and that's a strong possibility), but it sure looks like it's Kharzai or someone even less effective. To quote a really bad Jack Nicholson flick, "Is this as good as it gets?"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And replace him with what? The monarchy is a spent force. The Talibs aren't exactly our friends, but they have the backing of the ISI, which means they keep going. None of the old-school mujahedeen have a national base. None of the warlords, either. Mebbe you know something I don't (and that's a strong possibility), but it sure looks like it's Kharzai or someone even less effective. To quote a really bad Jack Nicholson flick, "Is this as good as it gets?"

Didn't Jack once also claim to be the best/winner because he was the "leper with the most fingers?"

[The Wizard]

And replace him with what? The monarchy is a spent force. The Talibs aren't exactly our friends, but they have the backing of the ISI, which means they keep going. None of the old-school mujahedeen have a national base. None of the warlords, either. Mebbe you know something I don't (and that's a strong possibility), but it sure looks like it's Kharzai or someone even less effective. To quote a really bad Jack Nicholson flick, "Is this as good as it gets?"

The warlords ARE the mujahideen, or were, FYI. But sadly, you make a good point. Really, what we need is a bunch of like-minded, university-trained Afghans willing to give all to lead their country out of this. And take the warlords, the drug mafiosi and the Taliban out behind the shed and give them the good old 9mm treatment.

[Lemur]

The warlords ARE the mujahideen, or were, FYI.

Most but not all, last I heard. There are some new folks emerging. Naturally, their money comes from drugs.

For the rest of your post, agreed, but it's fantasy-land, so there ain't much point to it.

[The Wizard]

I'll admit the last sentence was a (cherished) fantasy, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the post. Surely we don't have to rely so much upon corrupt, backstabbing warlords who take our money with one hand and undermine our efforts with the other? Seems more like a case of extremely bad decision-making and political cowardice, to me. Just like supporting Diem in Vietnam.

[al Roumi]

I'll admit the last sentence was a (cherished) fantasy, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the post. Surely we don't have to rely so much upon corrupt, backstabbing warlords who take our money with one hand and undermine our efforts with the other? Seems more like a case of extremely bad decision-making and political cowardice, to me. Just like supporting Diem in Vietnam.

As surprising as it may sound, these are no longer the days when Western countries can simply invade, occupy and subdue a country -if they ever could.

Even the US cannot afford the cost (mostly political, but also economic) of a protracted occupation of a foreign country. They have to work through local proxies. Unfortunately the underlying shared interest of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't mean shared goals once "the enemy" is pegged back a step or two. Karzai's government is corrupt and reviled by Afghans, but I bet they would prefer that to direct rule by the USA or a UN or NATO representative. You are also forgetting that Karzai did actually win Presidential re-election, by a safe margin that even the UN & EU observers couldn't whittle down far enough to make Dr Abdullah Abdullah a credible alternative to Afghans.

[The Wizard]

We did it in Bosnia, we can do it in Afghanistan.

You make a good point, though. In the past, you see, European powers didn't feel limited by any kind of compassion or demand for fair treatment of non-Western combatants or civilians. I mean, if the NATO just up and copied the British approach to the Second Boer War, we'd be home by Christmas, so to speak. Sadly for purely military purposes (as opposed to humanitarian or democratic ones), that is no longer possible a century later.

Still though. I refuse to accept that all we have is warlords and an ineffective, increasingly dishonest and corrupt president to work with. This was not the case in Vietnam, nor can it be in A-stan. Going by simple logic, there ought to be plenty of Afghans out there willing to stand up for their country with the political and intellectual baggage needed.

And as for Karzai's "reelection", AFAIK the only reason it didn't come to a second try was because Abdullah pulled out. Kind of like Iran right now, only with less oppression. Oh, the joy.

[Lemur]

Let's all have a big cup of hot, steaming reality:

Logistics into Afghanistan is a nightmare, and it only gets worse after you cross the border from the north or from Pakistan. By comparison, Iraq “logs” was like a run to a convenience store down the road. Afghan logs are more like driving from Miami to Seattle for grocery shopping, and then driving the groceries back to Miami while under threat of attack. Not a speck of exaggeration in that statement. Enemy logs interdiction was a large constituent of the Soviet defeat, despite that the Soviet Union comprised the entire northern border of Afghanistan. When the Soviet hammer tried to crack the Afghan rock, the hammer shattered. The Soviets can easily put people in space and keep them there, but they couldn’t handle backdoor logistics during their Afghan war. It’s easier to keep people in space than to supply our war here.

Our Coalition is stunningly more effective at logistics than were the Soviets. For instance, when the British were resupplying small FOBs near Sangin last year—just a short drive from the origin at Camp Bastion—the monthly convoys were major operations that drained needed combat power, and still vehicles were destroyed with casualties. So powerful are some of the bombs that they can launch the ultra-armored American MRAPs into the air, flipping them like turtles, often breaking the backs of soldiers. Even today, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is making moves to facilitate allies to get more counter-IED gear, such as MRAPs, which seems like a good move because some allies are risk-averse to the point of being ineffective (not that MRAPs are going to save them). By air, when a civilian helicopter was trying to resupply at Sangin, it was shot down just outside the base, killing the crew and at least one child on the ground. Make no mistake: this is a worthy enemy.

[rory_20_uk]

Afghansitan has no infrastructure, no government that we are not keeping in place and no alternative that is more than regional.

IS there a country there at all outside the international maps? I think not. So it disintegrates into smaller states. So what? It's a massive state. Belgium survived as a small, weak, pointless blot on the map.

Compared to Europe they're in the 16th-17th century with modern guns. The state has to be forged by them, not imposed by us. OK, as in the 16th-17th Europe, we can fix the dice, but not create the whole game

[The Wizard]

[...]

I'm well aware of this. All the more reason to put more troops on the ground, LOL

Also, "no infrastructure" is taking it a few steps too far. All of us have this image of Afghanistan as some kind of medieval hole where the only means of transport are donkeys and camels. Even me: last week I was surprised to read there was an important mountain tunnel north of Kabul that had been closed off due to avalanches. Wait... tunnels? In Afghanistan? Whoa, they can actually build those?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Wait... tunnels? In Afghanistan? Whoa, they can actually build those?

LOL, epic burn coming up...

Yeah, it is called the Salang tunnel and the Ruskies you hate so much built it...

Did you honestly think the Afghans could build something like that? (it is sad, but I am actually serious here...)


It is sad, but before the Americans came, basically almost anything that large was built by the Soviets the Afghans and Americans fought so hard to keep out. Talk about irony. Really, I do believe the Soviet rule in Afghanistan would have done much good, but not at the cost of a war to institute that rule.



Afghanistan really is a Mediaeval place... Their tribal organisation and deep vendettas coupled with powerlessness of the gov't and the lawlessness do create rather very inhospitable conditions for any development.