Article

2008-11-21 Afghanistan

pdf: How shoult the US execute the surge in Afghanistan?

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 3dc 2008-11-21 16:10|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Would a surge do any good in A-Stan?
Or should we do like the general said a few weeks ago and pick a suitable dictator and get out?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-11-21 16:47|| 2008-11-21 16:47|| Front Page Top

#2 It won't work without training a lot more Afghan soldiers and getting their numbers up to Iraqi levels.

Posted by Apostate 2008-11-21 16:56|| 2008-11-21 16:56|| Front Page Top

#3 How shoult the US execute the surge in Afghanistan?

With extreme prejudice.

Posted by gorb 2008-11-21 17:03|| 2008-11-21 17:03|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm not a military guy, and certainly not a tactician, but is the even an enemy to engage?
We kinda suck at nation building, we excel at fighting. Shouldn't we stick to what we are good at?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-11-21 17:21|| 2008-11-21 17:21|| Front Page Top

#5 I see none perused the article.

Posted by 3dc 2008-11-21 17:24|| 2008-11-21 17:24|| Front Page Top

#6 I haven't yet, 3dc, but I shall later tonight.

bigjim-ky, why do you say we suck at nation building? Those countries where we've done it seriously -- Germany, Japan, South Korea come immediately to mind -- have turned out pretty well, I think. The thing is, nation building takes a generation or so. We've only been in Iraq for five years, in Afghanistan to make the country work for perhaps the last year. It isn't realistic, in my opinion, to expect a culture based on mistrust and violent disorder to become peaceful, law abiding and productive that quickly.

Posted by trailing wife 2008-11-21 17:31|| 2008-11-21 17:31|| Front Page Top

#7 Speaking comparatively, of course TW.
It is a slow cumbersome, expensive task that gets a lot of political drag back home. We are much better at the fighting part.
As a matter of argument: Should we rebuild A-stan?
Do we owe them that? Would it give us any net benefit? Is it even possible? Or would they prefer to live under a tyrants boot? Cause if they do, there isn't a thing in heaven or earth that could make a nation out of them.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-11-21 17:36|| 2008-11-21 17:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Conclusion
As the situation in Iraq continues to improve and indigenous forces assume greater responsibility for providing security in that country, the U.S. must redirect its attention and resources toward addressing the crisis that continues to build in Afghanistan. The rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan can be attributed directly to the lack of persistent presence amongst the rural Pashtun population, the failure to prevent Taliban freedom of movement along the border, and the inability to train sufficient numbers of capable ANA and ANP personnel. By surging an additional eight brigades into Afghanistan, however, U.S. and NATO forces can quickly regain the initiative from the Taliban and improve the security situation dramatically. A surge would establish and maintain a continuous presence in areas currently dominated by the Taliban, allow security forces to relentlessly pursue the enemy, and support the training of additional Afghan army and police units to augment, and eventually replace, the surge forces. If the U.S. does not surge these additional forces into Afghanistan, security will continue to deteriorate, the Taliban will assume control over much of the country, political instability will follow, and the U.S. will face strategic failure.

sounds like good advice - especially the "securing the border" and "denying safe haven" points raised in the article. The Pak political gaming, ISI connivance with the Taliban, logistical delivery nightmare make me want to declare victory, declare Pakistan a failed terrorist state and cut our losses

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-11-21 17:48|| 2008-11-21 17:48|| Front Page Top

#9 Sounds like the Vietnam strategy.
Or am I wrong?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-11-21 17:53|| 2008-11-21 17:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Sounds like the Vietnam strategy.

Yep, Vietnimization, worked too, until we cut them out of every damn last piece of supply.

Posted by .5mt 2008-11-21 18:00|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2008-11-21 18:00|| Front Page Top

#11 We didn't cut out their supply, a donk congress overrode a presidential veto and did it. We are close to being in that situation again. But no one can question their patriotism, no sir.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-11-21 18:06|| 2008-11-21 18:06|| Front Page Top

#12 how about stopping nation buiding afghanistan in particular their main crop is opium. And there is no other crop that would meetnthe prcies that it brings. i say surge the troops and let the talibunnies and al q too keep coming i and getting killed because the kill ratio has been a pretty good on. Also pakiland can bitch all they want too about us striking inside their borders but i bet they still want their AID when it comes around again. I think India is getting tired of the militants too and are a strong enough military force too take on pakiland and the militants and pakistan doesn't want another clash with them.

Posted by chris 2008-11-21 18:24|| 2008-11-21 18:24|| Front Page Top

#13 The thing is, TW, we are still in Germany, Japan and South Korea some sixty years after hostilities ended. There is justified fear that if we left those countries they would deteriorate again into chaos, dictatorship or war. Do we really want our people to be in Afghanistan for the next 100 years? I can see the case in Iraq but not in Afghanistan. The logistics are untenable, the people are uncivilized and it doesn't seem like there will ever be any ROI. The ideal, wishful thinking kinda thing would be if we could locate Binny, Blinky and Knothead in their little hidey holes and kill 'em. Then leave. If a surge can accomplish that then maybe we should surge but no nation building for Afghanistan. If we wanna spend our blood and treasure suppressing ungrateful, uncivilized jihadis then we could go after the pirates in Somalia which at least has a strategic location and maybe even some decent surf. Let the Chicoms have Afghansistan. They deserve it.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-11-21 18:33|| 2008-11-21 18:33|| Front Page Top

#14 Germany, Japan, South Korea were already nations, who just slightly lost their way, TW.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-11-21 18:41|| 2008-11-21 18:41|| Front Page Top

#15 EU: So you're saying that if we left Okinawa and Ramstein Air Base, Japan and Germany would descend into chaos? Isn't that overstating the case just ever so slightly?

Posted by abu Chuck al Ameriki 2008-11-21 18:50|| 2008-11-21 18:50|| Front Page Top

#16 No closing of Ramstein until after I'm gone please.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-11-21 19:06|| 2008-11-21 19:06|| Front Page Top

23:21 Jeremiah Thaise1218
22:35 AzCat
22:17 OldSpook
22:09 OldSpook
22:03 OldSpook
22:03 Penguin
21:54 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:51 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:49 Anonymoose
21:46 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:40 Procopius2k
21:22 Zhang Fei
21:19 Zhang Fei
20:56 Abu do you love
20:36 Frank G
20:23 Anonymoose
20:15 Spike Uniter
20:14 Scooter McGruder
20:07 ed
20:01 Anonymoose
19:56 chris
19:52 Frank G
19:45 Frank G
19:24 Besoeker