Article

2008-07-28 Afghanistan

Afghanistan is Not Iraq: Reasons to Be Wary of Another Surge

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2008-07-28 09:26|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 We cannot solve Afghanistan without solving the issues in the tribal border areas of Pakistan, and in eliminating opium in Afghanistan.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-28 10:14|| 2008-07-28 10:14|| Front Page Top

#2 "tolerate poppy and fund the Taliban or eradicate poppy and drive poor farmers into extremists' arms. How can a military surge help Afghanistan find an effective solution for this poppy paradox?"

Easy. Eradicate poppies with defoliants, pay off the willing farmers, and use increased troop levels to kill the ones that join the taliban and rebel (and burn their farms and bulldoze their houses when we kill them in combat against the troops there).

Dead rebels don't do well farming poppies, other than as fertilizer.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-28 10:17|| 2008-07-28 10:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Make sure the farmers have something else to grow that is profitable and they are protected from the drug lords while doing it. Then we have a workable chance of pulling off a nice nation building exercise. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-07-28 11:20|| 2008-07-28 11:20|| Front Page Top

#4 I more or less agree. Afghanistan should be left to Afghans. Let Pashtun fight Pashtun while we make sure the other tribes and the border are secure and the poppy fields are destroyed.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-07-28 11:29|| 2008-07-28 11:29|| Front Page Top

#5 Americans should welcome the recognition by both presidential contenders that Afghanistan is central to U.S. and international security.

Let's examine this assumption. In exactly what way is Afghanistan central to US security? I'll be damned if I can think of one. It is difficult to think of a more godforsaken place on earth so bereft of economic, cultural, military, or political power.

We've kicked out the Taliban. We've demonstrated to some outstanding natural warriors what professionally trained warriors can do. We should tell them that if they entertain the likes of the Taliban and al Qaeda again, we'll be back. But not as nicely. And then leave.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-07-28 11:43|| 2008-07-28 11:43|| Front Page Top

#6 Sens. McCain and Obama seemed to start a competition over who would more rapidly surge U.S. military forces to Afghanistan.

The real difference is that McCain will listen to the Generals and take their advice, Obama will probably try to run the war himself since he is soooo smart. That's the real danger, not the taliwhackers, but Obama.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-07-28 12:07|| 2008-07-28 12:07|| Front Page Top

#7 In exactly what way is Afghanistan central to US security?

Because it is crucial to win the propaganda war and you would handle a big victory to jihadis if we retreat from Afganistan. Say a Gettisburg in the WOT.

Because for reaspons I have exposed several times it is crucialm to make Pakistan implode and the best instrument for this Pakistani Pashtuns (who have been radicalized by the Punjabis) wanting to leave Pakistan and return to their real country: Afganistan.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-07-28 12:20|| 2008-07-28 12:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Don't retreat. Leave. Elphinstone retreated.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-07-28 12:51|| 2008-07-28 12:51|| Front Page Top

#9 The difference between leaving and retreating is negligible to the Jihadist propaganda machine. That is something we need to consider.

Having said that, Pashtun's fight with everyone. We need to find a way to fight Pashtun's that support Al Queda and not Pashtun's that just want to kill their neighbors, or the government, or whomever.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-07-28 14:22|| 2008-07-28 14:22|| Front Page Top

#10 Our major weakness in the XOT is that people think that time plays for the jiahadis, that one day we will tire and that it will eb American helicopters over the roof of American embassy in Kabul. With those left behind being sadistically murdered like jihados have ever done. That is why people far to collabirate with Amdericans and that jihadis get new recruits.

Becauise Jihad nurtures itself of successes. And their "victory" against teh Soviet Union (never mind that 90% of the work was done by Massoud and
Ismael Khan who were not Taliban) was seen as amjor success for jihad. One, so big that theu thought they could tackle the other superpower. Give tham a victoty in Afghanistan and they will think they can tackle not only America but the world.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-07-28 14:55|| 2008-07-28 14:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Our major weakness is those on our side who are tooting for the enemy.

Maybe instead of the relevant 19th century reference I should give the less relevant 20th century reference of no Dien Bien Phu. That's a defeat, not leaving.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-07-28 15:21|| 2008-07-28 15:21|| Front Page Top

#12 A leftist told me a few months ago that Americans had had to run out of Vietnam. If americans leave and/or if the governement left behind is ousted (eg Afghanistan where it was Dostom, switching sides who tumbled the pro-Soviet government) jihadis will spin it as a victory. And it will do wonders for their recruitment and for the emergence of new bin Ladens.

Also, we would have a lot more people on
our side, including informants if everyone didn't remember the helicopters in American mebassy in Saigon.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-07-28 16:52|| 2008-07-28 16:52|| Front Page Top

#13 A surge will pump billions more into the Pakistan's economy who will then divert 10% to raise a new crop of jihadis.

Posted by ed 2008-07-28 18:46|| 2008-07-28 18:46|| Front Page Top

#14 The "Strongman" policy wherein US supported repressive regimes as long as they weren't too klepto and served US interests, was terminated by the Carter administration. Democracy isn't the solution in Central Asia. Afghan electors don't vote on merit; their votes are directed by War Lords and Clerics. In that context, Strongman rule would be better for them and the US. There is some evidence that the Northern Alliance wanted to execute those captured Taliban that the Tajiks, Russians, Uzbeks, and Americans wouldn't pay for. Scorched earth tactis - however brutal - worked in the North; they could be tried in the south.

Posted by McZoid 2008-07-28 19:48|| 2008-07-28 19:48|| Front Page Top

#15 ed:

Ironically, Waziri and Pashto terrorists who never heard of a cell phone prior to NATO's action in Afghanistan, now use these to advance terror. Pakistan has a revenue redistribution scheme, wherein the province's get fixed percentages of federal funds, including US aid. Paradoxically, US money is being used to murder American soldiers. Combine that with the Pashto Heroin monopoly, and a dangerous prosperity is flourishing in areas that should look like the Moon. Senator McCain took the high road in the Schmidt Commission process, into US military regulation in the Afghanistan field. He needs to campaign for rationalization of the entire scope of strategies and tactics in that GWOT front. The GOP has to offer something other than the status quo. The 9% bump that Obama gathered after his voyage of ignorance, manifests public interest in workable change. The Afghan status quo is not working; that status quo cannot be made to work.

Posted by McZoid 2008-07-28 19:58|| 2008-07-28 19:58|| Front Page Top

23:59 bigjim-ky
23:42 anymouse
23:23 trailing wife
23:18 trailing wife
23:14 Red Dawg
23:11 bigjim-ky
22:59 Intrinsicpilot
22:51 bigjim-ky
22:44 Pappy
22:42 Pappy
22:39 Red Dawg
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:33 Alaska Paul
22:31 Red Dawg
22:24 Old Patriot
22:15 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:07 Alaska Paul
22:06 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:56 Nimble Spemble
21:48 3dc
21:44 knerfley
21:38 OldSpook
21:36 Frank G
21:35 Frank G