Article

2013-09-11 Afghanistan

19 true things generals can't say in public about the Afghan war: A helpful primer

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 Besoeker 2013-09-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 "We don't know why we are here, what we are fighting for, or how to know if we are winning. "

The idea was to let the Taliban share in the terrorists' fate.
But that would have hurt feelings.
Along came operation 'Enduring Freedom', and Colin Powell who told Pakistan and others that the President's statement to a joint session of congress given in the immediate aftermath of an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor could be safely ignored.

"The strategy is to fight, talk, and build. But we're withdrawing the fighters, the Taliban won't talk, and the builders are corrupt."

See above, the original objective was to hunt down and kill the Taliban in retaliation for 9/11. "Fight Talk Build" sort of faded in as Bush's red line sort of faded away.

"Making this a NATO mission hurt, not helped. Most NATO countries are just going through the motions in Afghanistan as the price necessary to keep the US in Europe"

When a NATO ally went beyond 'going through the motions' the US' reaction was not positive.

"The Taliban may be willing to fight forever. We are not."

Apparently this is true even after an attack on the CONUS that was anything but incredibly small.

"...Vietnam...Vietnam...Nixon..."

For the US the Vietnam War was a limited war in the context of a global cold war. There's no comparison to the 9/11 war.

It is remarkable that this article about Afghanistan contains multiple references to Vietnam and none to 9/11.
IMO the apparent inability of Western elites to think outside and beyond the Vietnam experience is largely responsible for the dangerous mess we're in.

Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2013-09-11 06:14|| 2013-09-11 06:14|| Front Page Top

#2 It is remarkable that this article about Afghanistan contains multiple references to Vietnam and none to 9/11.
IMO the apparent inability of Western elites to think outside and beyond the Vietnam experience is largely responsible for the dangerous mess we're in.

Very well said, Elmerert Hupens2660. The rest of your post, too.

Posted by trailing wife 2013-09-11 06:43|| 2013-09-11 06:43|| Front Page Top

#3 Wat Ricks points to is essentially Vietnamization [a term we used to use for handing the mess over to the host country], as a departure strategy vs a plan for victory. I believe the comparison is all too appropriate. However terrible 9/11, over 70,000 Americans, along with an unknown number of indig anti-communist fighters, Auzzies, and Koreans, were lost in Vietnam.

BTW, Rick's article was passed to me by a recently retired Army two-star. You can bet it's made the back-channel circuit.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-11 07:27|| 2013-09-11 07:27|| Front Page Top

#4 The problem with Afghanistan is Pakistan.

We targeted the monkey not the organ grinder.

Posted by Paul D 2013-09-11 08:09|| 2013-09-11 08:09|| Front Page Top

#5 Karzai's family is especially corrupt.
We want President Karzai gone but we don't have a Pushtun successor handy.

It's a cultural thing. You won't find a Pushtun that isn't, by western standards, corrupt.

Should have armed the Northern Alliance et al to the teeth and leveraged them against those who harbored and worked with any AQ or Taliban. Pushing and following them into N.Pakistan if necessary. Reward those who work with you, make those who don't pay dearly. Humans pick up on that sort of thing.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-09-11 09:17|| 2013-09-11 09:17|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes, policy makers had a chance with General Dostum, but he was too direct and results oriented, too focused on victory, icky.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-11 09:20|| 2013-09-11 09:20|| Front Page Top

#7 We are ignoring the advisory effort and fighting the "big war" with American troops, just as we did in Vietnam.

By the time we left Vietnam, it was a clear North Vietnam vs South Vietnam fight (see North Korea vs South Korea). The pretense of local forces was literally destroyed after Tet, except in the minds and reporting of MSM. After we 'left', the South stopped the first direct Northern invasion in its track. The South's forces demonstrated it could hold its own. Then the Donk dominated US Congress cut off supplies and funding. That's when the second direct invasion succeeded.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-09-11 09:21|| 2013-09-11 09:21|| Front Page Top

#8 Well stated Paul D

We targeted the monkey not the organ grinder.

Sums up the policy in Afghanistan very vividly.

Posted by Au Auric 2013-09-11 09:24|| 2013-09-11 09:24|| Front Page Top

#9 The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch

Posted by Au Auric 2013-09-11 09:36|| 2013-09-11 09:36|| Front Page Top

#10 First rule of counterinsurgency: You never sets a deadline. If you do the insurgents know they have just to lay low enough to survive and collect the country once you leave. If you do formerly friendly people will begin help the insurgents so the insurgents don't kil them once you leave.

Only very stupid or people who want you to lose set deadlines.

Posted by JFM 2013-09-11 10:18|| 2013-09-11 10:18|| Front Page Top

#11 We should have put the Northern Alliance in charge instead of an election we knew would put the Pashtuns in power. With the Northern Alliance in power and the US providing air support (and blocking roads into and out of Pakistan) we could have buttoned the place up.

That sort of thing worked for every Empire in existance but we went the Democracy route.

Anyway, I feel the United States did our best to help the unworthy and found them wanting and I have no guilt whatsoever watching them slaughter each other now after so few of them stood up for civilization while they had the chance.

Posted by rjschwarz 2013-09-11 14:43|| 2013-09-11 14:43|| Front Page Top

#12 First rule of counterinsurgency: You never sets a deadline

How about: "You be peaceful & quiet by dd/mm/yy, or it'll be peaceful & quiet without you by dd+1/mm/yy."?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-09-11 15:30|| 2013-09-11 15:30|| Front Page Top

23:46 USN, Ret.
23:42 USN, Ret.
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:15 JosephMendiola
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:35 Alaska Paul
22:22 Frank G
21:32 Beavis
21:25 Mullah Richard
20:56 Pappy
20:46 Procopius2k
20:43 Procopius2k
20:42 Procopius2k
20:21 JosephMendiola
20:17 JosephMendiola
20:14 JosephMendiola
20:10 JosephMendiola
20:02 swksvolFF
19:58 JosephMendiola
19:56 Jack Salami
19:45 Redneck Jim
19:35 Redneck Jim
19:21 Redneck Jim
19:12 Secret Asian Man