Article

2010-10-17 Afghanistan

What will it take to win 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 ryuge 2010-10-17 04:23|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 It might take several more years, or even decades, to stem the violence, the Marines noted. And few expect the American public and international allies to be that patient.

Long-term prospects for peace also are diminished by passivity and corruption among the Afghans that U.S. troops are trying to help, creating deep frustrations. Ultimately, many service members concluded, the military campaign alone cannot defeat the Taliban insurgency, so the war is not theirs to win.

My educated guess is it would take 30-50 years of military occupation & re-education of the Afghans, PLUS losing a squad a month of US servicemen PLUS X-billion dollars.

Military activity of that duration WOULD defeat the Taliban. Keep killing enough of the die-hards, make sure they die hard, and eventually there would be peace there. There is a similarity between the Indian Wars on the Great Plains and the war in Afghanistan. However, the Indian Wars took place on US territory & were regarded as essential by the electorate of the time.

I really don't think the electorate would stand for an Afghan war of similar duration with the requirements mentioned, especially now that the US economy is moving in reverse.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-10-17 05:26|| 2010-10-17 05:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Capt. Emily Naslund: Its frustrating, getting them to see what is good for them that if they can get rid of the Taliban they can live a better life. You say You need to read and they say "Duhhhh, Allahu Akhbar!"

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-10-17 05:35|| 2010-10-17 05:35|| Front Page Top

#3 The mission isn't to turn Afghanistan into Japan. The mission is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorist operations in the future.

Come to think of it, it is also to prevent Pakistan from continuing to be a base for terrorist operations....

Posted by Mike Ramsey 2010-10-17 06:04|| 2010-10-17 06:04|| Front Page Top

#4 Change the CinC

Posted by JFM 2010-10-17 06:20|| 2010-10-17 06:20|| Front Page Top

#5 The mission is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorist operations in the future.
Yes, and just how is that going to be accomplished without turning Afghanistan into something resembling a modern nation? Be specific. Cite comparisons.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-10-17 06:48|| 2010-10-17 06:48|| Front Page Top

#6 I really don't think the electorate would stand for an Afghan war of similar duration with the requirements mentioned

We would if it were worth it. But Afghanistan isn't worth it. And the day after we left, they'd still have the same neighbors who would undo it in less than 5 years. The only way to fix Afghanistan is to fix South Asia the same way we fixed Europe. And even EUrope didn't stay fixed.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-10-17 07:23|| 2010-10-17 07:23|| Front Page Top

#7 I think the first thing we should do about our Af/Pak policy is to have one.

Reagan: "Here's my strategy for the Cold War: We win. They lose." (Worked.)

BO: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur" (Not so much.)

And then we have the recent Woodward book which pretty directly says that our Af/Pak strategy isn't about Af/Pak: it's about Washington in 2012. We're going to fight long enough to show that BO is a tough guy but then quit so he doesn't look like a war monger.

Or to put it differently: what would BO say if a 19 year-old Marine managed to get through to him on a sat phone and said: "I'm carrying 80 pounds of gear and the Lieutenant just told me to start walking up a path that probably has an IED every 10 yards. Before I take the chance of getting my legs blown off, sir, I want you to tell me why I'm doing this."

Posted by Matt 2010-10-17 09:50|| 2010-10-17 09:50|| Front Page Top

#8 This war is not about winning and losing. It never has been, at least to the Muslims. To think we can convert the mullah's in Afghan to civilized westerners is not only foolish but stupid, it will never happen. For us to say we can win it we must agree it is not a war with Islam. For if it is a war with Islam it's been going on for a thousand years and will not end in our lifetime. This is a war of containment, just like the crusades. We must see it for what it is, attack the real enemy and not every sand mullah that wants to be a hero. We need to attack the finances, logistical supporters, and leadership-again not some sand mullah but the king of saude, OBL's dad, Iran, etc. We seem to look at Afghanistan like we do football with a start, 911, and an end, ??. We have to get past this. We have to get to total war against the supporters of the jihad and drive Islam back to the middle east and not be afraid to bomb or kill the people and nations that support it.

There ya go AH, specific enough?

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-10-17 10:38|| 2010-10-17 10:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Afghanistan resides below the soft underbelly of Russia, to the east of Iran, bordering Pakistan, bordered also by China and it is a very important place for India. It is very tactical location. From where, you have the ability to effect regional actors.

It was never meant to be a nation building exercise. This was supposed to put a chain on the region where intelligence was less than 20%.

Had we remand present there after the Soviets pulled out, we would not have this large role now. The taliban was of Pakistan creation and encouraged by the US to defeat the Soviets.
Needless to say, it's all a charlie foxtrot and will not be solved unless Pakistan is on board.

Yet, I am of the belief that the answer is coming and this will soon no longer be a national nightmare.

Posted by newc 2010-10-17 10:38|| 2010-10-17 10:38|| Front Page Top

#10 The problem with ramping up the military effort in Afghanistan is that, unless some ME dynamic changes drastically, it is logistically unsustainable. All the hopes and wishes will not create a deepsea port for Afghanistan. And what we have right now is, from an operational planners perspective, a frickin nightmare waiting to happen.

What if Pakland goes unstable (I mean truly cracks up)? How do we get beans, bullets and fuel to the fight? C-17s? Look at how much it costs (per gallon) to deliver a gallon of JP4, diesel, or gas to the warfighter.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I see a lot more negatives than positives.

Posted by anymouse 2010-10-17 11:10|| 2010-10-17 11:10|| Front Page Top

#11 This article misses the point entirely. "Winning" and victory (victory of Islamic terrorists) is NOT this administration's goals, never have been, and never will be. The administration "goal" is to begin to extricate itself from Afghanistan as quickly as possible next year. This will be accomplished through cease fires, a truce, negociation, Taliban pay-offs, UN, whatever it takes. Obama has failed and continues to fail in every other aspect of his presidency. This is, quite frankly, all he has left.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-10-17 12:14|| 2010-10-17 12:14|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm as conservative as is possible, West Point '78, ten years as an active duty Infantry Officer, and my thoughts are: 2010 - all of the Afghans that exist are not worth the life of one more US Private.

I'm sorry - but there is no justification to continue throwing blood and treasure into this morass. If you constructed the most optimistic possible scenario - and I mean this literally, no bullshit - it would not be worth the life of one US private.

Declare victory, and get out. Period.

How fast could the US military get out? As a former Division G-3 Plans Officer - the answer is: about the weeks - if anyone cares. And - trust me (really) - if the players are given incentive to expedite, the entire deployed force could be deployed back in three weeks.

I despise Obama. I love America. I love, and am immensely proud of, the US Army. To my bone marrow, I would step outside my normal life profile 100%, to support Obama, if he had the balls to simply stand up, and order an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Every single US casualty from now on, dies in vain. I hate that this is true. Really. Every day and night. I watch the funeral processions on Youtube - and the videos of routine firefights - from my home in Bangkok - and I cry. I mean really cry - so deep, and so sincerely - and I curse the "popular culture" that has made it possible for US fighting men to sacrifice themselves for nameless mountain ridges, in nameless sectors, of nameless areas, of nameless ares, of remote provinces.

For fucks sake - expend blood and treasure where there is something worth protecting/defending. That defines about 1,000 square meters (US Embassy Compound) of Afghanistan.

I wish it sere otherwise. But - I play the cards as they are dealt.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2010-10-17 12:31|| 2010-10-17 12:31|| Front Page Top

#13 As former Army I second lone rangers views and feel such melancholy about this it sickens me. I can't watch much news on casualties anymore to avoid setting myself into a PTSD rage. I was having heart palpitations it gets me so wound up and I am young. When I see the protracted slow mo train wreck it, a soldier dies and it is like watching a human sacrifice procession for a bloodthirsty king. Obama is evil incarnate. We need to pack up, come home and unpack.

Posted by PrivateEye 2010-10-17 12:43|| 2010-10-17 12:43|| Front Page Top

#14 "Declare victory, and get out. Period."

With one very loud proviso (which the present Administration won't give, but maybe the next one will): You screw with us again, or allow anyone within your borders to screw with us again, we're coming back - from 30,000 feet. And anyone who survives won't like the results.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-10-17 12:54|| 2010-10-17 12:54|| Front Page Top

#15 I could not agree with the last two comments more. Afghanistan is backward and tribal because it is surrounded and interspersed with mountain ranges. We are not going to be able to change that geographical fact. We are not going to gain anything by staying there. We need to get out and get out now. The smartest thing the Republicans in Congress could do after Nov 2nd is to push this obvious strategy. If shit happens from there again, we have bombers that can flatten just about anything. Use them as needed.

Posted by remoteman 2010-10-17 13:02|| 2010-10-17 13:02|| Front Page Top

#16 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original goal of our intervention in Afghanistan was to get OBL, destroy the ability of al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base for operations, and punish the Taliban for allowing OBL to use Afghanistan.

To borrow a phrase, mission accomplished on everything except OBL's severed head.

Somewhere along the way we got the idea that in order to prevent al-Qaeda from using Afghanistan again as a base of operations, we'd have to engage in 'nation-building'. I think that's where we went wrong.

I greatly appreciate what our military has done in Afghanistan. I appreciate the NATO allies who have actually fought.

But I'm beginning to think that there is no nation to build in Afghanistan.

There might be three or four nations, but they all overlap. There might be some people in that land who see and want a unitary nation, but they're in the minority.

It might be done in time, but that time might best be measured on a geological scale.

If the fundamental goal is to ensure that Afghanistan never again is used as a base of operations by international terrorist groups for attacks against our country, we can guarantee that with a much smaller military footprint, and at a much lower cost in treasure and blood, then what we have now. But we're not going to turn Afghanistan into a nation any time soon.

What I would do (since one shouldn't criticize without putting forward a solution) --

1) work a deal with Karzai -- we get Bagram and some logistical support to the north, he keeps his head

2) work a deal with Dostum and the other northern tribes to keep a rough peace

3) leave some Green Beret types with the northern tribes to help train and equip their militias so that they can successfully hold off the Pashtuns

4) use the CIA to work with more favorable Pashtun elements so as to hold down the influence of the ISI and the Taliban. That's a tough order and won't be completely successful, but we have to try

5) leave a smallish infantry and support unit at Bagram; enough to hold the place and allow Bagram to host an A10 unit and plenty of UAVs

6) make it really, really clear to the Pashtun leaders -- we don't care what you do amongst yourselves in Pashtunistan, but the moment you allow al Qaeda or anyone else to camp in your zone so that they can train to kill Americans, we send in the A10s, UAVs, etc. Ditto if they go against the northern tribes. We drone-zap and blow up stuff until you get the message.

That's what I would do. I'd measure success as a) no more attacks on the US b) no more American casualties c) Afghanistan off the front pages.

Posted by Steve White 2010-10-17 13:07|| 2010-10-17 13:07|| Front Page Top

#17 Wrap it in a pretty bow and give it to China for Lebensraum.

Posted by Water Modem 2010-10-17 13:47|| 2010-10-17 13:47|| Front Page Top

#18 First, decide if you want to win. If so full warfare. No sissified ROEs. War is hell - take off the gloves and kill the enemy. We owe our troops that much or bring them home.

Posted by Hellfish 2010-10-17 13:55|| 2010-10-17 13:55|| Front Page Top

#19 Sun Tzu said that the best way is to win without fighting. The best way to do that is to divide and keep them at each other throats. Reward those who co-operate punish those who don't.
One thing Sun Tzu didn't have was UAV's, the modern day equivalent to the assassins. Keep them employed day and night.
Something serious needs to be worked out about the usual cackle liberal lawyers, sociology professors and Christian ministers who won't be able to sleep at night worrying about the miscreants "Yuman Rites". A series of puzzling "tragic accidents" might help their insomnia problem.

Posted by tipper 2010-10-17 14:54|| 2010-10-17 14:54|| Front Page Top

#20 Define "win". What do we want to accomplish? Nation-building - OK, if it happens that would be nice, but beside the point. The way I see it - the Taliban when they ran A-stan, provided aid and support to AQ in their attack on the US. So the reason we are still in A-stan is to kill Taliban. As long as there are Taliban, lets keep killing them.

Posted by George Glinelet7273 2010-10-17 16:11|| 2010-10-17 16:11|| Front Page Top

#21 But *they* keep killing us too which is the genesis of the anger and frustration if you've read the other commenters. We could kill them all in a matter of weeks and be home for dinner if we had a sounder strategy and backing from zero or as one put it didn't have "sissified ROEs". COME ON, were like sitting ducks. We don't have to do a a slow bloodletting to kill taliban and though some speed has been picking up, can you say slow and painful as paralyzed molasses. For goodness sake, put the situation out of its misery, or maybe some enjoy tormenting our soldiers with B.S. If so, get some help.

Posted by Rupert Jusonter6770 2010-10-17 16:39|| 2010-10-17 16:39|| Front Page Top

#22 P.S.

Nation building? That is a joke, bomb them back to the stone age. Heck, then leave behind complimentary soap, deodorant and toilet paper on the way out. Won't fill the gaping morass we keep dumping resources and lives into.

Posted by Rupert Jusonter6770 2010-10-17 16:50|| 2010-10-17 16:50|| Front Page Top

#23 For those who still think Afghanistan is winnable if we just kill enough of them, I'll point out that the Soviets tried that strategy and look where it got them - arguably no more Soviet Union.

What worries me the most is that the West has no strategic interest in Afghanistan, but it will be the place where the will to defend the places where we do have strategic interests was lost.

Posted by phil_b 2010-10-17 18:06|| 2010-10-17 18:06|| Front Page Top

#24 "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."
I thought Ike started this quote but it was Mark Twain. I am certainly not interested in Afghanistan.
I would rather work with those who want to improve themselves and isolate those who wish ill will to others. Otherwise a an eternal conflict.

Posted by Dale 2010-10-17 18:25|| 2010-10-17 18:25|| Front Page Top

#25 the problem? Our "ally" Pakistain is supporting, rehabbing, and directing Rube f*ckers against us. I'd suggest some targetted "friendship cleansing" among our "ally" if we want to "win". Cyber-cleansing of ISI tool's retirement funds would help as well. An attitude change (by attrition? OK by me!) among the Paki thieves and backstabbers is the answer

Posted by Frank G 2010-10-17 18:27|| 2010-10-17 18:27|| Front Page Top

#26 I also want to cash in my "scare quote" deficit against Paul's exclamation point surplus. We're all together, right?

Posted by Frank G 2010-10-17 18:29|| 2010-10-17 18:29|| Front Page Top

#27 I didn't see Lone Ranger #12. I agree and thank you for your service to our country.

Posted by Dale 2010-10-17 18:33|| 2010-10-17 18:33|| Front Page Top

#28 With one very loud proviso (which the present Administration won't give, but maybe the next one will): You screw with us again, or allow anyone within your borders to screw with us again,

Except they will screw with us again. They already are screwing with us again. There's supposed to be another Faisel the Fizzlebomber on U.S. soil working to assemble another Times Square VBIED, there are supposed to be teams in Europe working to start another Mumbai-style city-wide attack, Al Qaeda in Yemen's Inspire magazine has told eager young jihadis in Dar Al Harb to borrow Daddy's SUV and mow down people in the mall/university parking lot.

This is the kind of war where "declare victory and go home" means we surrendered; they will concentrate on attacking us at home instead of looking up to see if they're about to kiss a UAV missile.

That is what this president will cause, if he gets his way.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-10-17 18:40|| 2010-10-17 18:40|| Front Page Top

#29 Not necessarily, and insofar as a justification to keep sinking blood and treasure into A-stan hole, not enough justification as far as I can tell.

they will concentrate on attacking us at home instead of looking up to see if they're about to kiss a UAV missile.

They've been concentrating. Our presence in Afghan region is not a deterrant to attacks on our homeland. How many homegrown and known foreign attacks here in the US have been foiled within the last decade. And thats not including the unpublicised ones. No, we don't need to stay in Afghanistan to avoid attack, they will attack us either way.

Posted by Rupert Jusonter6770 2010-10-17 19:14|| 2010-10-17 19:14|| Front Page Top

#30 First things first - Kill Gul!

Posted by Water Modem 2010-10-17 19:25|| 2010-10-17 19:25|| Front Page Top

#31 Looking over the comments it seems to me that a core problem is this: we have two basic weapons: action and the threat of action. But the threat of action is only a weapon if it's credible. A threat by W was a real weapon because no one doubted that the crazy bastard would break some serious furniture, Exhibit A being Saddam's short-drop-sudden-stop adventure.

But a threat by BO, assuming he could even muster the nerve to express a threat clearly, would be a weapon only in the sense of possibly causing some of our enemies to die of laughter. This guy is going to get us all killed.

Posted by Matt 2010-10-17 20:23|| 2010-10-17 20:23|| Front Page Top

#32 USDOD

versies

* NEWS KERALA/TOPIX > TOP AUSTRALIAN COMMANDER: TALIBAN CAN'T BE DEFEATED MILITARILY [calls for fundamental change in NATO-Pak strategy].

* DAILY TIMES.PK > TALIBAN [still] A THREAT IN FR PESHAWAR DESPITE OPERATION [Pak Army MilOps = PLURAL]. Locals claim the Talibs always come back once the Govt. forces depart.

* PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > 3.0MILYUHN WEAPONS HAVE DISAPPEARED FROM OFFICIAL [Govt] WAREHOUSES IN PUNJAB.

POSTERS = May find some of them but not all of them, LOSS MAY INDIC THAT ELEMENT(S) WIDIN PUNJAB GOVT. ARE A MAJOR COVERT SOURCE FOR THE TALIBS AS PER PROCUREMENT + RESUPPLY OF MILTERR WEAPS???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-10-17 20:38|| NA 2010-10-17 20:38|| Front Page Top

#33 Agree with most comments...especially LR's. As a bit of background I have almost 28 commissioned years, active and reserve, have unit members in theater as I write. More personally I have a USMC son on his M2nd E tour in theater right now.

If you are going to fight, you fight to win. What needs to happen there is almost certainly beyond the political and national will. I will change LR's comment slightly: If a country does not have the collective will to win a war it is not worth one drop of its sons' and daughters' blood.

Posted by anymouse 2010-10-17 20:54|| 2010-10-17 20:54|| Front Page Top

#34 First you need to immobilize.

Go from village to village and give the villagers tattoos to tell where they are from.

Then if you round up suspects, and they don't have tattoos or the wrong tattoo for the area, they have explaining to do.

Next work on supply lines.

Posted by flash91 2010-10-17 22:08|| 2010-10-17 22:08|| Front Page Top

#35 Not going to happen. Look at who is in charge. It is time to $%%t or get off the pot. We've come to a hole stan to shit and only farted around, no disrespect to those who've served, I have, if my profane prediclections didn't give it away. But as anymouse says, we're too soft. We may have the will, but the politicians and the liberals don't and affordability is a whole different problem.

Posted by Private Eye 2010-10-17 23:06|| 2010-10-17 23:06|| Front Page Top

#36 Private...If you read the accounts of the Pacific campaigns, and even Korea and we did not play for a tie. We went all in. If America's finest are in harm's way, we owe them no less.

Posted by anymouse 2010-10-18 00:09|| 2010-10-18 00:09|| Front Page Top

00:09 anymouse
23:55 Squinty Whusort3201
23:33 crosspatch
23:06 Private Eye
22:52 Skidmark
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:19 flash91
22:18 Rob Crawford
22:18 Procopius2k
22:08 flash91
22:04 JosephMendiola
21:38 JosephMendiola
21:36 Faeries8121
21:33 Bobby
21:32 JosephMendiola
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:10 JosephMendiola
21:03 JosephMendiola
20:56 crosspatch
20:54 anymouse
20:43 Nimble Spemble
20:38 JosephMendiola