Origination of a new verb: “to Rumsfeld” versus sending more troops to Afghanistan

[nerdgirl 0]

There’s saying that when a unit get named for you, you’ve become really famous. (Long live the “marg” -[at myself]) … but I’m not sure the connotation is quite as complementary when one’s name becomes a verb, as in “to Rumsfeld” something.

South Carolina Sen Lindsey Graham, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and a USAF Reserve Colonel:

“The President [Obama] is right, Afghanistan is now the central front on the war on terror. That means more of everything, more troops, more political engament, more economic engagement.
“We made mistakes in Iraq .... Let's don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let’s don't do this thing on the cheap. Lets have enough combat power and engagement across the board to make sure we’re successful. Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan.”

He goes on to speak about ensuring rule of law.


Would you support sending more US troops to Afghanistan?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Would you support sending more US troops to Afghanistan?

For what purpose?

We are all engines of karma

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Would you support sending more US troops to Afghanistan?

For what purpose?

Domino theory

One Jump Wonder

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Would you support sending more US troops to Afghanistan?

For what purpose?

To limit the threat to US interests posed by "Afghanistan [which] is now the central front on the war on terror."

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rickjump1 0]

Rummy should have read a little about Nathan Bedford Forest. Something like.. "War means killing, and the best way to kill is to get there first with the most men." Nothing piece meal about that Confederate general.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

To limit the threat to US interests posed by "Afghanistan [which] is now the central front on the war on terror."

Which threat is that?

We are all engines of karma

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

To limit the threat to US interests posed by "Afghanistan [which] is now the central front on the war on terror."

Which threat is that?

You might imagine it as the threat to which you’ve asserted “There is going to come a time where OUR COUNTRY needs to commit to being a clear winner in the world.” and “ The world needs a clear winner right now. Badly.”

Others can imagine, argue, or dispute other threats, as Sens Graham and Levin do.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To limit the threat to US interests posed by "Afghanistan [which] is now the central front on the war on terror."

Which threat is that?

You might imagine it as the threat to which you’ve asserted “There is going to come a time where OUR COUNTRY needs to commit to being a clear winner in the world.” and “ The world needs a clear winner right now. Badly.”



/Marg

Oooh, that must sting

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

To limit the threat to US interests posed by "Afghanistan [which] is now the central front on the war on terror."

Which threat is that?

You might imagine it as the threat to which you’ve asserted “There is going to come a time where OUR COUNTRY needs to commit to being a clear winner in the world.” and “ The world needs a clear winner right now. Badly.”

Others can imagine, argue, or dispute other threats, as Sens Graham and Levin do.

/Marg

Oooh, that must sting

Ugh … that wasn’t intended to be snarky.
Re-reading it, I can see how it could be read as such.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

To limit the threat to US interests posed by "Afghanistan [which] is now the central front on the war on terror."

Which threat is that?

1) Taliban establishing control over a larger portion of Afghanistan and allowing AQ to continue using it as a base of operations to stage attacks against the US/rest of the world.
2) Taliban and AQ building the insurgency in Pakistan to a large enough level where they can gain control of the Pakistani government and/or their nuclear weapons.

Take your pick.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Would you support sending more US troops to Afghanistan?
/Marg

Yes, assuming they can pull together a plan that makes sense with clear goals and enough money/support to accomplish those goals.
Also, increase State Department funding and send more of those folks over there too so I can stop worrying about how to fight the Taliban AND how to get a school financed.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Also, increase State Department funding and send more of those folks over there too so I can stop worrying about how to fight the Taliban AND how to get a school financed.

Concur.

"Counterinsurgency is armed social work" to steal Dave Kilcullen's phrase.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Re-reading it, I can see how it could be read as such.

I didn't take it that way at all, Marg. I just wanted to build the discussion.

I do think our country needs to commit to being a clear winner, militarily if needed. I don't think those threats are really coming from Afghanistan. AQ/Taliban money is coming from other places, and we should be dealing directly with the money people, and forcefully if necessary.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

1) Taliban establishing control over a larger portion of Afghanistan and allowing AQ to continue using it as a base of operations to stage attacks against the US/rest of the world.

I'm not sure what to think here, anymore. If we can get the Taliban to stand and fight, we'd deal with them pretty quickly. Looks like they're starting to do that.

Quote

2) Taliban and AQ building the insurgency in Pakistan to a large enough level where they can gain control of the Pakistani government and/or their nuclear weapons.

I wouldn't mind seeing our SOF guys going to work in Pakistan. Let's literally put some fear in the AQ folks over there, and make it very personal.

We are all engines of karma

[redlegphi 0]

I seem to recall reading in Kilcullen's book that well over half of the Taliban's funding is coming from opium being grown, processed, and sold out of Afghanistan. More important than the cash is the land that gives the AQ a place to recruit from and train without interference from the West. It also could potentially act as a gateway to Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the future.

[redlegphi 0]

You'll see some Taliban stand and fight. These are typically religious zealots who've been trained in a madrassa and who are all too willing to die (and more power to them). But they only make up a small part of the Taliban structure. You've also got the leadership cadre who usually don't fight and often aren't even in the country. You've got the more permanent fighting cadre who have been fighting us for years and in that area for decades who are far too smart and well-trained to launch attacks against us in a fight that they aren't sure they'll win. And you've got the locals who will either join up with the permanent cadre as they swing through an area or will at least offer logistical support. Beating all of these groups will take much more than just convincing the Taliban to fight us in a straight up "fair fight" which they'd be idiots to do.
As for Pakistan, we don't need our troops in that country. We need to get the Pakistani troops to do their job while we try to build support for the non-fanatical Pakistani government through aid.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I seem to recall reading in Kilcullen's book that well over half of the Taliban's funding is coming from opium being grown, processed, and sold out of Afghanistan. More important than the cash is the land that gives the AQ a place to recruit from and train without interference from the West. It also could potentially act as a gateway to Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the future.

Yes, those are estimates (& not just from Kilcullen's latest book, which is fantastic, imo).

After the Taliban were removed from (total) control, opium production surged and they (the Taliban) changed their policy as illicit sales became its principal market commodity. President Karzai has rejected US requests for aggressive eradication efforts, i.e., spraying glyphosate, aka “RoundUp.” What has led to a decrease in poppy cultivation for illegal drugs a couple years ago? Increase in food commodity prices.

“In parts of Helmand Afghan farmers are this year sowing wheat instead of poppy - not because they have suddenly been converted to the argument that producing heroin is not in the national interest.

“Market forces have been the deciding factor - with wheat prices doubling in the past year, and the street price of heroin falling, it is now more cost effective to grow wheat.”

The US began significant counternarcotics operations in the fifth year of the GW Bush admin. While that was around the time SecDef Rumsfeld left and SecDef Gates came in (Jan 06), I don't think that change is directly attributable to Rumsfeld's departure.

Counternarcotics operations under a number of the PRTs were extremely successful, especially along the border w/Pakistan (Nuristan, Nangarhar, Konar) and Bamian ... but not in the south, i.e., where the Marines are now (as I'm sure you know).

Counternarcotics operations have been increased under GEN McKiernan and more so recently under GEN McChrystal.

Like most things in the real world, it's more complicated. E.g., Taliban-affiliated groups, which as you likely know are not uniform across Afghanistan, are also known to have asked Afghanis when harvest time was and avoid operations during those times.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

AQ/Taliban money is coming from other places, and we should be dealing directly with the money people, and forcefully if necessary.

More on the origin of Taliban & AQ money that arrived in my inbox this morning: “How Opium Profits the Taliban.” The 44-page report examines who are the main beneficiaries of the opium trade in Afghanistan (Taliban insurgents; warlords; Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists; and some folks who are motivated more by black-market, capitalist greed ), how traffickers influence the Taliban insurgency as well as the politics of the region, and considers the extent to which narcotics are changing the nature of the insurgency itself. End message: if one only tries to apply conventional tactics, our efforts will not be successful.

From the summary:

“In Afghanistan’s poppy-rich south and southwest, a raging insurgency intersects a thriving opium trade. … for more than three decades of conflict in Afghanistan—the opium trade has become deeply embedded in the politics of the region. Key players and families tied to opium smuggling, trafficking routes, and methods of laundering drug money have remained remarkably unchanged. So too has the West’s willingness to downplay the problem, repeatedly viewing narcotics as a ‘lesser evil’ to the greater challenge at hand. Since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, the poppy trade has played a critical destabilizing role, both in corrupting the Afghan government and police and in bankrolling the resurgence of the Taliban.

“…Taliban commanders on the village level have expanded their activities related to drugs from collecting extortion and charging protection fees to running heroin refineries and engaging in kidnapping and other smuggling schemes. As insurgent commanders become more deeply tied to criminal activity, it will become more difficult for the coalition of foreign forces in Afghanistan to defeat them. Although there is wide variation across the war theater, drug profits flow up the chain of command within the Taliban and other insurgent and extremist organizations operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. These funds appear to play a key role in funding the operational costs of the Taliban and many of these other groups.

The “So What? Who Cares?” i.e., why we should care and why this matters, especially for the effectiveness and success of current military missions:

“With thousands more U.S. troops deploying to Afghanistan, joined by hundreds of civilian partners as part of Washington’s reshaped strategy toward the region, understanding the nexus between traffickers and the Taliban could help build strategies to weaken the insurgents and to extend governance. … it is no longer possible to treat the insurgency and the drug trade as separate matters, to be handled by military and law enforcement, respectively.”

“A key challenge to disrupting these drug profits will be penetrating and breaking up powerful drug networks that bankroll the insurgency and launder dirty money. Most smuggling networks appear to be run by close-knit families and tribes, making them difficult to penetrate. They appear to work with both insurgents and corrupt state actors and their motives are profit, not religion or politics. Another major challenge will be winning back the ‘hearts and minds’ of Afghan villagers whose lives—and livelihoods—have been decimated by the drug trade and the incessant fighting but who also remain hostile toward Western forces [there’s the ‘armed social work part – nerdgirl]. As much as the criminalized insurgency creates challenges, it also presents opportunities. The rising tide of violence and daily misery has made the Taliban deeply unpopular in the south and southwest, and nationwide polls indicate that they and other extremist groups have little support. At this point, the Kabul government and NATO forces are not well respected either, especially in the violence-wracked south. However, a reshaped military strategy that focuses on providing security to the local communities preyed upon by insurgents and criminals, that improves governance, and that provides alternative livelihoods could win public support and with it increased cooperation for fighting the insurgents and criminals. For many rural Afghans, the greatest perceived threat is crime and economic instability, not the insurgency per se.”

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

Marg we discussed before what the solution was, we both agreed.

Why is that plan not being implemented?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Marg we discussed before what the solution was, we both agreed.

Why is that plan not being implemented?

I'm not sure that your "solution" is the same as I would propose/recommend, particularly as I'm not sure what your "solution" is.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying