The war in Afghanistan - the war that President-elect Barack Obama pledged to fight and win - has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a specific target. Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda lived, harbored by the Islamic extremist Taliban government. But the enemy escaped into Pakistan, and for the past seven years, Afghanistan has been a slow bleed against an array of mostly indigenous narco-jihadi-tribal guerrilla forces that we continue to call the "Taliban." These ragtag bands are funded by opium profits and led by assorted religious extremists and druglords, many of whom have safe havens in Pakistan. Thoughts?
#1
Our problem in Iraq until the surge was a lack of focus on a goal (i.e. winning?). It looks like that may be the case in Afghanistan. Tactics is mandatory but you don't often win a battle without a Strategic goal to guide the tactical situation.
#2
Thoughts? Stupid. Stupid because the main battlefield in the WOT is in the propaganda field. Jihadism got an enormous boost after "expelling"
Soviet Union (never mind that it was most about Soviet Union running out of money and that Massoood not the jihadists dis mots of the work). They would get a boost ten times bigger if Maerica ran. Not to mention the message to all allies, to all eople wanting to tell anyting to American forces from the emplacement of an IED to a second 9/11: sooner or later Almerica will abandon you and then it Jihadis will sloooooooowly kill you and your children.
That does not mean that we are doing it welle in Afghanistan.
1) I think that Karzai had been a very bad choice. We thought we needed a Pashtoon but he has been ineffective and also about the first things he did was to reintroduce the Arabs (I remember how he handled the contract of mobile phones to an Arab company within weeks of getting nominated) when what was needed was to promote anti-Arab feelings in Afghanistan. This would have quickly translated into hostility towrds anyone seeming in Arab pocket. I have come to the conclusion that Massod' second (don't remember his name) would habve been a better choice despite being a Tadjik.
2) Main problem in Afgnistan are not the Taliban but the vulnerability of coalition's supply lines through Pakistan. The North-East alternative is at Putin's mercy. Then there is the South-East alternative through Iran.
It is in fact this vulnerability twho could lead to defeat but it would be a catastrophe ten times worse than Vietnam who after Cambodian and Laos dominoes fell lead also to Soviet Unuion setting foot in Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua just to name a few.
the international humanitarian effort is a shabby, self-righteous mess; some of our NATO allies aren't carrying their share of the military burden
Afghanistan was termed the 'good war' because it had all of the politically-correct, international-cooperation, hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya, nation-building aspects. Like all other 'good wars' it lacks in execution.
#5
The big problem is our logistical vulnerability in Pakistan. We would be better off declaring victory, leaving Afghanistan to govern itself and cleaning up Pakistan. With the switch in administrations Barak Hussein could do this in a way that minimizes the PR difficulties. But it will soon become his war if he doesn't.
#6
The first thing we need to do is to show the Afghanistanis that we can be as mean, evil, wicked, bad, nasty, cruel and heartless as they can, but practice restraint out of a sense of personal dignity. Until we PROVE we can be that vicious, we won't get anywhere. An ARCLIGHT strike on Quetta, a commando raid on Meshud or that idiot that runs the TTP, or the total razing of a village that supports the Taliban, will be essential before we can convince the Pashtuns that we have two options - we can be nice and just fight the Taliban, or we can be a first-class SOB and destroy everything in sight. Which option we choose will be determined by the citizens of Afghanistan.
Karzai has been a total loss, and needs to have an "unfortunate accident". Whether Afghanistan replaces him with another Pashtun, a Tajik, Uzbeckistani, or Korean, is their choice. Our response will be OUR choice. We might even consider reinstating the Zia dynasty. Things worked best when the Zias were in charge.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/11/2008 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Afghanistan is a cluster because of the logistics isse/geography. It is going to take a whole lot longer to "win" there than it has in Iraq.
Karzai is a norco-kleptocrat, nothing more than worthless. We need to sack him and start buring opium fields. That shows our nasty side. We can then assist in infrastructure development to show our nice side. The actions of the Afghans will determine which side we show.
But even with this obvious move, I don't think it is a sustainable operation given that we have to re-supply through enemy territory. Better that we do a diplomatic dance, declare victory and leave. If something wicked this way comes from that part of the world, send in OP's arclight several times over.
#8
Like it or not, Afghanistan has become a ward of the state. We can't just declare victory and leave. We need to win.
Dumping the worthless local leader is always attractive, but never works out as well as you hoped. See e.g. Diem.
Killing more bad guys isn't going to do much either. They have a nearly endless supply of cannon fodder, and the big turbans have safe havens in Pakistan.
The way out:
1. Legalize the opium trade -- legal demand worldwide is more than sufficient to buy the entire Afghan crop, so there's no reason to get all worked up about illegal drugs.
2. Kill off the bad guy leadership (ideologues, funders, technical specialists and crime bosses) one by one regardless of where they hang out.
3. Take a page out of the Soviet (and Roman) play book and start bringing a few thousand of Afghanistan's best and brightest here each year for a western education. After 4 years they go back with technical degrees and some spending cash.
We'll start to see results after 5 years and be ready to leave in 10-12.
#9
Their culture doesn't seem to understand assistance or help, but they understand and respect power.
Pick a suitable dictator and quit whining about what he has to do to maintain order, I think our obligation to them is more than paid. It should be INCUMBENT on them to do some of the work themselves. Up till now they have done jack squat.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/11/2008 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Find General Dostum. Call him President, El Hefe, whatever and put him in charge. Attach a Special Forces Group as advisors and a squadron of B-52's. Peace will be breaking out in no time at all.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/11/2008 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Iraq was important for the future. Afghanistan was a search and destroy mission.
India should have sway here. If you have to rely on Russians, and our forces are land locked, it is going to be a tough one to maintain.
Objectives there have been silenced. This is now an intel and foreign war. If we can stomach it, I always ask for troops on the ground. Thats my bag. However, this portion of the long war is asymmetric, and this is how we need to apply doctrine.
Iraq is able, Afghanistan and pakistan are 50 year wars alltogether. We have done well in both. But Afghanistan is Russias bag. Pakistan is China.
Iraq is far more of a pinnicale situation and a gainer of respect than trying to build roads for Pashtuns that run across boarders and house with druglords overnight and kill innocent proplr by day.
I was never concerned as much with Cush as I was Babylon. I back it feverently naturally. And I see it's advance as a great addition to Civilization.
'
The Majority want us there and love us. If this is good enough and we would like to progressivly help them, it will spread into the Pashtun region and it will make the world safer for a very long time.
This and Iraq are very good things we have done by GOD.
Need more choppers and troops.
I chomp at the bit to go in unofficial capicity.
Side arm and an ID card is all I need.
This is a stratiegic goal in isolation and / or containment of another local power. Poppies maybe your weapon if you like. look at how the FSB operates in South America -Mexico.
Iran is the last Pin. And green lights are on for removal of Mullahs first and Nukes second.
The ball moves constantantly. Let us not be mired in the path with which it has already rolled.
#15
Can't see any real reason for being in Afghanistan other than to field-test new military technology. The country is always going to be a medieval hellhole, with not a single miniskirt to be found.
#17
I believe the college girls in Kabul used to wear mini-skirts back before the Russians ran roughshod over the landscape, Thregphak Blamix. So there is a tradition other than moving blue objects.
While he literally gives the judicial system two middle fingers, in the photo accompanying the article about German editorial reaction to the conviction of the "suitcase bomber".
#1
From the cited article: "I don't know if this alternative to gasoline-powered cars will work, but I do know that it can be done" Bit of dissonance there. If it won't work, it isn't really done but only an attempt at doing. Any prediction of what can or can't be done is imaginary. I imagine there is no real substitute for indefinite continuation of the present automobile economy in the US & would put my money elsewhere. Friedman's hopes for electric cars are limited by lack of battery, generating & delivery capacity, especially considering the number of people dependent on automobile transport in the US and the size of this country.
"Remember, in 1908, the Ford Model-T got better mileage - 25 miles per gallon - than many Ford, GM and Chrysler models made in 2008" Ouch, that smarts! However, my great-grandmother preferred to walk 6 miles round trip than ride the same distance in a Model T.
#2
Remember, in 1908, the Ford Model-T got better mileage - 25 miles per gallon - than many Ford, GM and Chrysler models made in 2008.
Oooh, nice factoid, Mr. Friedman! A bit of an apples to oranges comparision, though, given that a Model T weighed 1,200 lbs. Note also the clever use of 'better than many models'. GM's Saturn gets somewhere around 30 mpg with a curb weight of around 3,000 lbs.
#4
The product is the problem, to an extent. Detroit built some truly craptacular iron in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. Vega, Pinto, Volare, Citation, Granada, Oldsmobile 5.7L diesel . . . need I go on?) and turned off a whole generation of customers. They're building more competent vehicles now, but the damage to brand equity is hard to overcome. (My '78 Monza put me off GM for three decades.)
As for why the product was so bad, the UAW certainly had something to do with that.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/11/2008 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I like my U.S. made vehicle. It's roomy, gets 22 mpg, and can snap your neck to get around a cattle truck. I have 3 years interest free to pay for it, and all my major service costs are paid for.
#7
There's lots of problems besides the UAW. The current Chrysler mini-van is not attractive. But it is still the best designed mini-van around. But the dealer service is so bad the spousal unit and I bought a Honda instead. I hate it, but she doesn't get treated like an idiot by the staff at a metal recycling yard.
Then there's the management that keeps caving into the UAW. And the government that keeps fiddling with CAFE so the manufacturers have to build cars people don't want that aren't profitable.
#8
Those of us who lived long enough remember the 70s Oil Crisis(tm) brought on by the Arab Oil Embargo. Detroit, which before Senate hearings, had said the American public didn't want small gas efficient cars was caught naked when American drove up Japanese car sales to the upper twenties in less than a year or so. Detroit [auto manufacturers and the UAW] scrambled hard and fast pressuring Congress to established trade quotas. The Japanese made a voluntary agreement to limit the 'imports', but simply shifted what they imported up a notch in grade and expense. The Japanese also made long term plans to get around future threats by building in America. However, when gas eased and Americans forgot the consequence of short oil, many of them did not forget that when they got those Japanese cars they got a quality piece of merchandise that worked great and when they went to purchase it, they got nearly everything standard in the price without a long list of 'extras' on the sticker. Consequently the Japanese held on to that big chunk they picked up and have methodically been absorbing more of the market because of their practices.
Twenty-five years later Detroit was still largely operating like it was 1975. For twenty-five years they refused to face the reality that in the 70s their asteroid hit and they've been sleep walking. For twenty-five years they kept to the old way of doing business. And today that includes throwing politicians at their problem instead of fixing the problem. Their final act is to institute formally the concept that every taxpaying citizen exists to serve those who own and operate the state - to reintroduce serfdom.
#10
bman, i also like my US-made car. it get 27-29 mpg, seats 5, has had no unscheduled downtime, 317k + on the clock. liked the first one so much i bought this one and then another (daughter totaled the first at 330k).
#11
I love my Dodge Grand Caravan. It's roomy, comfortable (it doesn't RIDE like a truck, even when it's working like one), and I can get in and out of it without my bad back reminding me of my problems. It has a crappy transmission that gives out around 165,000 miles. That problem has existed since the very first model, yet it hasn't been corrected in the 25+ years Caravans have been on the market. I've had my latest for eight years, and put 80,000 miles on it. It's been paid for since 2005. I'll probably trade it in next year on a newer model, but I expect the same problems exist on it that my current van has. If Honda, Nissan, or Toyota had a comperable vehicle (comperable in gas mileage, acceleration, comfort, and visibility), I'd probably buy it. The ONLY "new" vehicle I've ever purchased was a Nissan Stanza. In the meantime, I continue to buy Detroit defects, hoping I'll only get a "mild" lemon.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/11/2008 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The Big 3 will do anything to avoid the obvious, restructure. File bankruptcy, renegotiate with the UAW or toss them altogether, redo the business model and trim a LOT of fat from the corporate herd. Sell those private jets, freeze or reduce executive pay, no bonuses until they make a profit.
A new MBA grad could do this, but for some reason the entire congress and industry is fighting like hell to prevent the inescapable.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
