Article

2009-12-16 Afghanistan

Five Flawed Assumptions of Obama's Afghan 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 gorb 2009-12-16 02:40|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Has Karzai seen the Ghost of President Diem yet?

Posted by Don Vito Anginegum8261 2009-12-16 07:20|| 2009-12-16 07:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Juan Cole? You are quoting Juan Cole? That just gave the article away.

Posted by Angleton9 2009-12-16 08:14|| 2009-12-16 08:14|| Front Page Top

#3
1. B.S., it absolutely does.
2. Racist.
3. Doesn't matter, we can replace him at any time.
4. It absolutely does!
5. Got one out of five right! Yay Time!

Posted by Parabellum 2009-12-16 08:15|| http://sidemeat.wordpress.com/ 2009-12-16 08:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Parabellum:
1) AQ probably does require a ground war, but as stated, not (just) in A'stan.
2) Afghans might possibly, eventually be able to take over the mission, but nothing shown in their history to-date gives me confidence.
3) Karzai - probably the best we can do, which again gives no confidence (were Ky, etc. any improvement over Diem?)
4) Defined departure date creates leverage - for the other side.
5) Pakistan clearly does not share US goals.
So, all five assumptions are indeed flawed.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-12-16 08:41|| 2009-12-16 08:41|| Front Page Top

#5 I didn't get very far in this opinion piece. Here is where I stopped,

"The fact that the Taliban is now effectively in control of as much as half of the country eight years after being routed by the U.S.-led invasion is a sign that the local population is at least more tolerant of an insurgency against foreign forces."

This is a non sequitur. What if the Taliban control (which is mostly rural) is due to the local population being too weak to fight them. In that case, the surge is the only way to break the Taliban hold.

Posted by lord garth 2009-12-16 09:19|| 2009-12-16 09:19|| Front Page Top

#6 I am not, and have not, been convinced that a large-scale operation in Afghanistan is required to meet our needs.

I absolutely support our guys and want them to have everything they need. If McChrystal says he needs more, I bow to his judgment; give him more.

But I am not convinced.

The goal in late 2001 - 2002 was to destroy al-Qaeda, break the control of the Taliban over the country, and ensure that Afghanistan couldn't be used as a base to plan and conduct terrorist operations against us. All of which we did.

Mission accomplished, to borrow a phrase.

We then got sucked into the problem of rebuilding Afghanistan, on the understandable premise that we had to do something to prevent someone else (the Taliban, the Paks, but I repeat myself) from filling the void when we pulled out.

With respect to Dubya whom I continue to admire, that's where we went wrong.

The plan of the Army of Steve would have been different: we would have turned to the people of the Northern Alliance (e.g., Dostum), as nasty as they were, handed them the keys to the place and said "here, it's yours." We would have funded and supplied them to keep the Pashtuns in their natural pecking order and keep the Talibs from getting strong. We would have kept an air support unit in the north (around Mosur-al-Sharif, say) and in the west (e.g., Herat) with helicopters and perhaps some A-10s on call to support the Northern Alliance.

It would have been tricky because of the danger of being sucked into the petty squabbles of the region. But it would have had the virtues of being low-maintenance and being completely within the goals of our original strategy -- keep al Qaeda out. In time the press would forget all about Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance would build something (or not), the Pashtuns would be a ward of Pakistan which would suit the ISI, and al-Qaeda, every time they stuck their heads up, would be bombed.

Now we have the surge. Okay, as I said, I support the guys and I'll support McChrystal. But I think we have a high-maintenance solution to what is a low-maintenance problem.

Posted by Steve White 2009-12-16 10:02|| 2009-12-16 10:02|| Front Page Top

#7 Steve's take is right on target.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2009-12-16 10:11|| 2009-12-16 10:11|| Front Page Top

The goal in late 2001 - 2002 was to destroy al-Qaeda, break the control of the Taliban over the country, and ensure that Afghanistan couldn't be used as a base to plan and conduct terrorist operations against us. All of which we did.

And to insure that Afghanistan not be a base again, you have to look to Pakistan and the frontier areas where the disease starts. Annnnnd, you have to look to the financiers and take them out or put the fear of God into them, which we did not do on the scale required.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2009-12-16 10:23|| 2009-12-16 10:23|| Front Page Top

#9 Our objective in 2001 was to destroy the Taliban as a hosting government and to render Al Qaeda homeless so they could not continue to train the next generation of terrorists and plan the next round of terror attacks. In this we succeeded. However, Pakistan has stepped up to the plate as host, now that what they view as their backyard has been taken from them. How are we to leave the region until that situation is rectified? We are already seeing attacks and major attempted attacks around the world including in the U.S., planned and sourced by Pakistani terror groups with connections (whether current or former) to Pakistan's ISI, which means ultimately members of the armed forces senior officers.

So long as we remain active in Afghanistan, Pakistan's internal situation will remain stirred up, until they actually realize that supporting terror proxies is not acceptable... or until between Talibs, etc and the army they break enough of their own country that they quit out of sheer exhaustion.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-12-16 12:19|| 2009-12-16 12:19|| Front Page Top

#10 Steve throw in a Phoenix Program and I think you have got it pretty much covered.

Posted by tipper 2009-12-16 12:26|| 2009-12-16 12:26|| Front Page Top

#11 I think TW has nicely summarized the situation in 2 paragraphs. Quitting, while tempting, is no solution.

I hope the strategies of Gen McChrystal work as a lot of blood and treasure are invested in them. But sitting there like a lump (defensive positions, pushed back on our heels) was not working, resembled Basra.

Posted by tipover 2009-12-16 14:40|| 2009-12-16 14:40|| Front Page Top

#12 May this little allegory add to my masters understanding.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-12-16 15:40|| 2009-12-16 15:40|| Front Page Top

#13 Steve is on the money. Although, I would add the NA was no nastier than the Taliban and probably less.

It's worrying that the Burg's brains trust can see this while the powers that be can't.

And at root the problem is the Left can't admit that Bush was right about Iraq and they were, and continue to be, wrong about Afghanistan.

Posted by phil_b 2009-12-16 20:37|| 2009-12-16 20:37|| Front Page Top

#14 My analysis is the opposite of tw's. The Northern Alliance would fight the Pushtun's to a more or less stable truce or stalemate roughly along ethnic territorial lines. The Pushtun would then use their stable rear (now in Afghanistan) to attack Pakistan and that would inevitably collapse the Pakistan state or result in a Taliban takeover.

Posted by phil_b 2009-12-16 20:48|| 2009-12-16 20:48|| Front Page Top

00:00 Cornsilk Blondie
23:58 Cornsilk Blondie
23:57 USN, Ret.
23:51 Cornsilk Blondie
23:44 USN, Ret.
23:40 Cornsilk Blondie
23:34 Injun Omereth5262
23:33 Injun Omereth5262
23:32 Injun Omereth5262
23:28 gorb
23:19 gorb
23:07 abu do you love
23:02 DMFD
22:35 crosspatch
22:30 American Delight
22:23 Alaska Paul
22:20 Injun Omereth5262
22:18 Alaska Paul
21:06 phil_b
20:48 phil_b
20:39 Butch Shaish6298
20:37 phil_b
20:32 Iblis
20:25 Uncle Phester