wmw999 2,569 #26 October 5, 2009 An Afghanistan where the preponderance of the people can see more opportunity for a good life for themselves and their families and tribes by working within the system than by forcibly changing it or going outside the law. Which means most of the stuff in DanG's post, for most of the people. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #27 October 5, 2009 QuoteTo which historical conflicts do you think the US should be looking for guidance and options? We should be looking to the Soviet war in Afghanistan for guidance. We're fighting the next generation of the same mujahideen, only this time we are fighting on the other side, making our position analogous to the USSR's. QuoteDo you think Afghanistan is a ‘winnable’ conflict? Why or why not? Is ‘winning’ even the best descriptor? No, it's not winnable as a military conflict. Fighting it as such plays right into al Qaeda's strategy. QuoteShould the US send more troops to Afghanistan? Why or why not? No, we shouldn't send in more troops. It was a bad idea to send the troops that we've already deployed to Afghanistan. The WTC attacks left the USA with the need to do some intensive international police work to bring the perpetrators to justice. Instead of doing that, the former administration waged a war on Afghanistan. That strategy allowed al Qaeda to grow and become a movement. Sending more troops only perpetuates that strategic blunder. QuoteYes, [McChrystal is] Special Forces. More specifically Army Ranger. (Others can debate/disagree with me whether or not or too what extent that qualifies as SF.) Army Rangers are not the same as Army Special Forces. Some troops may go to both schools and are considered to both, but to be considered Army Special Forces, a soldier must be qualified to wear the green beret and the Special Forces tab.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #28 October 5, 2009 i'm undecided, as well... we went there in the first place, looking for O B L , who apparently has become the invisible man... we got distracted by the previous administration, who drove the entire world to Saddam Hussein's doorstep, under FALSE pretence,, in an effort to 'spread democracy' well , so then, we trained all the new security and police and defense forces for that country,,,, ( on the American taxpayers tab)... So, why not recommend that IRAQ... now send some of THOSE forces into this Afghan Quagmire,,,, and make global restitution for all the resources which THEY have received....???? It would be good "practice for them" and would spare any more casualties of OUR fine and brave young men and women... Frankly I believe in isolationism.... close our borders, the Hell with everybody, bring alllll of our manufacturing BACK into the USA, CUt CEO payroll by 90 % to finance it,, and RE-Invigorate Our own work force...with decent reasonable paying JOBS!!!! Quit poking our nose into everybody else's business, ( and making ENEMIES, in the process...) and finally recognize that our 21st century arrogance has put us well 'behind the 8 -ball' in terms of our clout, our stature in the world, our reputation, and our Confidence...... More troops????? " we're ankle deep, knee deep, waist deep, chest deep, neck deep, in the Big Muddy,,,,, the Big Fool,, ( the Pentagon.. NOT Obama),,, says to push on." jmy to paraphrase, " those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it".. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #29 October 5, 2009 Quotei voted yes, but what i really mean is that we should either give the generals what they need to accomplish the mission they've been given, or change the mission. I think that may be what we're starting to see: greater questioning of is the mission counterinsurgency (which is a type of escalation, altho' *very* different from conventional operations) or should it be containment? The current Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) -- 3rd in line w/in DoD --is strongly COIN-leaning. Gates view, imo, is wider than just COIN but extends to larger SSTR (security, stability, transition, reconstruction) issues (reflecting his time at USAID). The Special Advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan is COIN-leaning. Whole bunch of OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) appointees are COIN-conversant. /Marg [edited to expand acronyms] Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #30 October 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI voted yes but in this context. Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives. Remember when people said the same thing re: what to do in Vietnam? Everyone was telling them to do either A or B; but instead we did C, and the rest is history. I won't be surprised if the same thing happens this time around, too. No, I don't remember. What was "C"? "A" was "get in there in massive, overwhelming force, and robust, proactive rules of engagement, and to hell with the Latioan and Cambodian borders, and to hell with the N. V. civilian population centers, bomb them all into the stone age, and win this thing the right way, goddammit!." "B" was "cut our horrendous losses in blood and treasure, stop tearing our own country apart at the seams, and get out now (that was ca. late 1960's)." "C" was what we actually did, which was the Kissinger/Nixon approach that didn't get us fully out until 1974. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #31 October 5, 2009 QuoteWe should be looking to the Soviet war in Afghanistan for guidance. We're fighting the next generation of the same mujahideen, only this time we are fighting on the other side, making our position analogous to the USSR's. Strongly disagree. The local population does NOT view us in the same light as the Soviets. They may start to if we don't reduce civilian casualties and put an Afghan faace on the conflict, but they don'tr at this point. QuoteArmy Rangers are not the same as Army Special Forces. Some troops may go to both schools and are considered to both, but to be considered Army Special Forces, a soldier must be qualified to wear the green beret and the Special Forces tab. He's both. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #32 October 5, 2009 Sure blame it on Nixon, have you ever heard of LBJ and McNamara? So in actuality you are blaming the wrong administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 October 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe should be looking to the Soviet war in Afghanistan for guidance. We're fighting the next generation of the same mujahideen, only this time we are fighting on the other side, making our position analogous to the USSR's. Strongly disagree. The local population does NOT view us in the same light as the Soviets. They may start to if we don't reduce civilian casualties and put an Afghan faace on the conflict, but they don'tr at this point. I will grant you that it isn't exactly the same. No two wars are ever exactly the same. However, al Qaeda is using the same strategy against the US that previous mujahideen groups used successfully, or at least were perceived to have been used successfully, against the Soviet Union. Their motivations are similar now as then, even if not identical. QuoteHe's both. Fair enough. I was simply pointing out that Rangers are not the same as Special Forces, even if some soldiers are both.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #34 October 5, 2009 QuoteSure blame it on Nixon, have you ever heard of LBJ and McNamara? So in actuality you are blaming the wrong administration. Maybe I was vague. I blame it on LBJ, McNamara, Westmoreland, Abrams, Nixon and Kissinger. LBJ fucked it up, eventually realized he fucked it up (or that everyone, including Walter Cronkite felt he did), and bailed in '68. Nixon ran on a platform of having a "secret plan" to fix what was broken and get us out of Nam - "peace with honor" - but it was all a lie, and it all went to shit. Excellent source: "Kissinger" [biography] by Walter Isaacson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #35 October 5, 2009 QuoteI will grant you that it isn't exactly the same. No two wars are ever exactly the same. However, al Qaeda is using the same strategy against the US that previous mujahideen groups used successfully, or at least were perceived to have been used successfully, against the Soviet Union. Their motivations are similar now as then, even if not identical. Their motivations may be similar, their tactics are arguably similar, but the view of the local populace (a key, if not THE key element in COIN) is not the same. The Soviets were seen as invaders. The US, at least up until 2005 when I left for good, were seen as liberators. We had very strong support from the local population. I don't believe the Soviets ever had that. McChrystal and Petraeus understand how important that is. I don't think the Soviets ever got it. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #36 October 6, 2009 Quote I don't think the Soviets ever got it. They got it, up the ass, once we gave their indigenous enemy our Stinger missiles. Problem is, we gave them to the Taliban. Oopsie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 October 6, 2009 QuoteTheir motivations may be similar, their tactics are arguably similar, but the view of the local populace (a key, if not THE key element in COIN) is not the same. That doesn't matter, considering the strategy being utilized against us. The strategy is to get us tied up in a war of attrition in Afghanistan. That strategy is working out pretty well for our enemy (i.e. our Frankenstein) right now. The war against al Qaeda isn't and hasn't been one that can be won militarily. Trying to fight it in such a manner is foolhardy, a waste of time, money, and lives.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #38 October 6, 2009 QuoteThe war against al Qaeda isn't and hasn't been one that can be won militarily. I think I see where you are coming from, but not sure I really agree. If you mean that we need to focus on the civilian side and work to remove the attraction to extremism, then I agree. If you mean that we should pull all troops and other support and try to go after AQ with a law enforcement stance, then I heartily disagree. What are you proposing? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #39 October 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe war against al Qaeda isn't and hasn't been one that can be won militarily. I think I see where you are coming from, but not sure I really agree. If you mean that we need to focus on the civilian side and work to remove the attraction to extremism, then I agree. If you mean that we should pull all troops and other support and try to go after AQ with a law enforcement stance, then I heartily disagree. What are you proposing? I'm not proposing anything at this time. I'm simply stating that getting us to fight a war of attrition in Afghanistan was/is al Qaeda's strategy to achieve their goals w/r/t to the US. We enabled mujahideen to use that strategy against the Soviet Union, and now they're using it against us. If we could go back to 2001, the best course of action would be to treat the matter as an international police issue, using (at most) special operations forces (e.g. Army Special Forces, Navy SEAL's, etc.). Unfortunately, al Qaeda is much larger and widespread today. Finding a successful strategy will be much more difficult. However, sending in more troops is not the answer.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #40 October 6, 2009 Quote If you mean that we should pull all troops and other support and try to go after AQ with a law enforcement stance, then I heartily disagree. An American who doesn't want to follow international law - how surprising. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #41 October 6, 2009 Quote What do you think? Should the US send more troops to Afghanistan? Is that the question. OK, That's the question. Here's another question ; What's our goal in Afghanistan? Originally our goal was to ensure that the proposed pipeline carrying natural gas from the north through Afghanistan,through Pakistan wouldn't be molested. Bin Laden wasn't really ever the goal and he was never and certainly the Taliban were never in anyway involved with 9-11 .That's all just a fairy tail for kids or those with the same intellect down through the looking glass "freedom and democracy and get the villains, "War on Terr". So do we need more troops? If we still want that pipeline -Hell Yeah!!!!! Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,523 #42 October 6, 2009 Quote Quote I don't think the Soviets ever got it. They got it, up the ass, once we gave their indigenous enemy our Stinger missiles. Problem is, we gave them to the Taliban. Oopsie. Oh, boy. THERE WAS NO TALIBAN UNTIL THE LATE 90's! A little history. So few people followed the Afgan war in the 80's. The only publication to cover it on a regular basis was Soldier of Fortune magazine. The Soviets were winning. They had done a very good job of destroying the resistance and driving a large portion of the civilian population into Pakistan until the US started providing arms. The different factions of the resistance spent almost as much time fighting each other until Ahmed Shah Masoud (AKA the Lion of the Panjshir) rose to prominence. Ironically he was killed on Sept 9, 2001 by Al Queda assasins posing as journalists with a bomb in a camera. Masoud organized most of the different factions and made peace with the rest to offer something resembling organized resistance to the Soviets. These factions included Iranian-backed Shiites, Arab backed Sunnis (the Mujahadeen that resurfaced in Bosnia and Chechneya among other places). They were "enemy of my enemy" allies, not liking or trusting each other, often (although not as much) fighting each other over the supplies and arms provided from outside. After the Soviet withdrawl, the various factions resumed fighting each other, and the country was as much at war as when the Soviets were there. Pakistan was dealing with a huge refugee problem, serious unrest across a very porous border, and a rising Islamic fundamentalist movement. There is a plausible story that the Pak intlel community gave the Taliban it's start to cope with these problems. The Pashtun population is where the Taliban took hold, first pacifying the border areas, then slowly taking over most of the rest of the country. As bad as they were, the Taliban at least provided a measure of stability and many refugees began to return. Masoud and his Northern Alliance were fighting the Taliban (with a small level of US assistance) but had been pushed back to the Panjshir Valley, his base of support and was actually facing defeat when he was killed. The US "attack" on Afghanistan in September of 2001 was actually a very small Special Forces contingent (that had been there for a while, doing what the Green Beanies do best - training) leading, supporting, and (most importantly) offering air support to the Northern Alliance. This is what drove the Taliban out of power, and back to the Pashtun areas where it came from. Now what? In theory, very simple. Provide basic security, allow a legitmate government to take control and assist it in restoring basic services. Training the Afghans to protect themselves isn't all that hard (not easy though) Convincing the ones who really believe in and support the Taliban will be very hard if not impossible. Allowing them to "go legit" and become something like an "opposition party" has attractions, although a lot of danger. The legitimate government has recently become a major issue. It has been horribly corrupt. The election is clearly flawed. If the US allows it to stand, then the president will remain in power by stealing the election. If the US forces him out, then we will have put in a govenment of our choice, not theirs. My understanding is that we have made significant progress, not spectacular progress, but progress nonetheless. More troops to fight a semi-conventional war against the Taliban's normal spring offensive would probably be a good idea. Civil Affairs and engineers to help restore the infrastructure would also be a good idea. But what to do about the government??"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #43 October 6, 2009 QuoteAn American who doesn't want to follow international law - how surprising. Nice twist of my words and intentional misunderstanding. SC at its best. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #44 October 6, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I don't think the Soviets ever got it. They got it, up the ass, once we gave their indigenous enemy our Stinger missiles. Problem is, we gave them to the Taliban. Oopsie. Oh, boy. THERE WAS NO TALIBAN UNTIL THE LATE 90's! Actually, I thought about editing my post to refer to "the insurgents which (in part) gave rise to the Taliban", but I got lazy and didn't. And you caught it. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin Quote Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.[18] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[19] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #45 October 6, 2009 Quote The only publication to cover it on a regular basis was Soldier of Fortune magazine. While I would agree that the threat was not recognized or down-played for much too long, "only" is perhaps a bit hyperbolic. At least 110 publications & citations dealing with Taliban between 1980 & 1990. QuoteMy understanding is that we have made significant progress, not spectacular progress, but progress nonetheless. More troops to fight a semi-conventional war against the Taliban's normal spring offensive would probably be a good idea. Civil Affairs and engineers to help restore the infrastructure would also be a good idea. But what to do about the government?? Thanks for your comments. I share what I am reading as concerns w/r/t the legitimacy of the current Kabul government. And that extends beyond the elections this past August. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #46 October 6, 2009 I voted no. I think the US and the UK have enough troops in theatre it about time the rest of the coalition steped upto the plate. (Canadians aside) Germany and France have token forces as do most of the other countries many of whom won't deploy into 'dangerous' areas. Its pathetic, rather than send more Brits and Yanks sort the rest out. troop figures for the following countries are pathetic. Austria 4 Ireland 7 B&H 2 As for the Italians and Spanish? Why are they there at all, their lovers not fighters it seems. Not allowed to engage the enemy??? Then get the F*** out of the country and stop pretending to fight a war while posing around Kabul in their pretty uniforms. Sarkozy also needs to get his finger out of his Gallic ass and send the extra 5000 troops he keeps mumbling about.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #47 October 6, 2009 Quote well , so then, we trained all the new [Iraqi] security and police and defense forces for that country,,,, ( on the American taxpayers tab)... So, why not recommend that IRAQ... now send some of THOSE forces into this Afghan Quagmire,,,, and make global restitution for all the resources which THEY have received....???? Hmmm ... interesting idea. It's definitely out of the box. Logistical challenge. But even the suggestion would certainly make interesting politics, particularly w/r/t Iran. (How would all those Iraqi troops get to Afghanistan? ) Quote Frankly I believe in isolationism.... close our borders, the Hell with everybody, bring alllll of our manufacturing BACK into the USA, CUt CEO payroll by 90 % to finance it,, and RE-Invigorate Our own work force...with decent reasonable paying JOBS!!!! Quit poking our nose into everybody else's business, ( and making ENEMIES, in the process...) and finally recognize that our 21st century arrogance has put us well 'behind the 8 -ball' in terms of our clout, our stature in the world, our reputation, and our Confidence...... At the time the Soviet Union collapsed, American primacy was not viewed as arrogance. It was viewed as marking 'the end of history' and sign of victory of democracy & free market capitalism. In between then & now, a lot of things happened. Imo, part of it is we are a victim of own success: as far back as the Pres Eisenhower's inaugural speech there has been recognition that increasing the development of the world increases markets to which we can sell goods. In helping raise the status of other countries, new markets were created; we also created competitors economically and groups who were threatened culturally, e.g., radical Salafist & al Qa'eda backlash with goal of recreating the 7th C Islamic Caliphate. Not sure that the genie of the 'flat world' can be put back in the metaphorical bottle. What the world had in 1992 -- global US primacy -- may not be re-attainable. Quote to paraphrase, " those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it".. Concur. History is not predictive but it should not be ignored either. (That's a nerdgirl original, afaik ) The question is which history is the most informative. Vietnam is an informative start but also problematic. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is specious - we're neither looking to occupy nor fighting a conventional war nor is it a Cold War conflict. French in Algeria? British in Malaya? OEF-Philippines? Iraq after counterinsurgency strategy was introduced? The American Revolution? (We were a successful insurgency after all.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #48 October 6, 2009 Thanks for posting on the reasons behind your 'no' vote. I chuckled (perhaps a less than diplomatic response) at your comment w/r/t German troops. One meme I recall from Brussels this June was that if the Germans could get any further north they'd be in Tajikistan. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #49 October 6, 2009 Responding to the points made by BACEVICH QuoteContaining the threat posed by jihad should follow a similar strategy. Robust defenses are key -- not mechanized units patrolling the Iron Curtain, but well-funded government agencies securing borders, Who's borders? Sealing yourself in and ignoring the enemy only allows them greater freedom and movement. Only a halfwit terrorist would be caught by the yellow pack workers that are employed by border control. Quotecontrolling access to airports and seaports, Actually controlling access or making the public 'feel' safer? Are airports and seaports not controled to the best of the lacking ability of border agencies at the moment? If not why not? Quoteand ensuring the integrity of electronic networks that have become essential to our way of life. Technology keeps overtaking ICT security progress, good idea in principle but very difficult to negate the human screw up factor QuoteAs during the Cold War, a strategy of containment should include comprehensive export controls and the monitoring of international financial transactions. Without money and access to weapons, the jihadist threat shrinks to insignificance: All that remains is hatred. This statement alone demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the enemy and his tactics and stratergy. The cold war was fought against states. This is fought against organised and loosely organised groups and individuals following a doctrine of hatred. The funding is not only from donations around across the world but also often not using traditional banking/financial structures (The Tailban et al didn't have a rough time because of Lehman brothers going under) Money is also raised from the Heroin that is produced and exported. Now last time I checked there was already a ban on such trade. As for weapons, anyone who has ever been to Dara market would know that they make them themselves, if you want a good copy of a AK thats the place to be. Also as I remember the 9/11 terrorists brought down three airliners using knifes. I went through a airport twice this week carrying razors in my hand luggage and they confiscated my contact solution as it was 120 mL not 100mL and let me kept the razors. Go figure! QuoteIdeally, this approach should include strenuous efforts to reduce the West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which serves to funnel many billions of dollars into the hands of people who may not wish us well.” They already have billions, if anything it would only serve to accelerate the funding against the west.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #50 October 6, 2009 Quote Thanks for posting on the reasons behind your 'no' vote. I chuckled (perhaps a less than diplomatic response) at your comment w/r/t German troops. One meme I recall from Brussels this June was that if the Germans could get any further north they'd be in Tajikistan. /Marg LOL.. Yep, and their quite safe posting has bitten them on the bumWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #42 October 6, 2009 Quote Quote I don't think the Soviets ever got it. They got it, up the ass, once we gave their indigenous enemy our Stinger missiles. Problem is, we gave them to the Taliban. Oopsie. Oh, boy. THERE WAS NO TALIBAN UNTIL THE LATE 90's! A little history. So few people followed the Afgan war in the 80's. The only publication to cover it on a regular basis was Soldier of Fortune magazine. The Soviets were winning. They had done a very good job of destroying the resistance and driving a large portion of the civilian population into Pakistan until the US started providing arms. The different factions of the resistance spent almost as much time fighting each other until Ahmed Shah Masoud (AKA the Lion of the Panjshir) rose to prominence. Ironically he was killed on Sept 9, 2001 by Al Queda assasins posing as journalists with a bomb in a camera. Masoud organized most of the different factions and made peace with the rest to offer something resembling organized resistance to the Soviets. These factions included Iranian-backed Shiites, Arab backed Sunnis (the Mujahadeen that resurfaced in Bosnia and Chechneya among other places). They were "enemy of my enemy" allies, not liking or trusting each other, often (although not as much) fighting each other over the supplies and arms provided from outside. After the Soviet withdrawl, the various factions resumed fighting each other, and the country was as much at war as when the Soviets were there. Pakistan was dealing with a huge refugee problem, serious unrest across a very porous border, and a rising Islamic fundamentalist movement. There is a plausible story that the Pak intlel community gave the Taliban it's start to cope with these problems. The Pashtun population is where the Taliban took hold, first pacifying the border areas, then slowly taking over most of the rest of the country. As bad as they were, the Taliban at least provided a measure of stability and many refugees began to return. Masoud and his Northern Alliance were fighting the Taliban (with a small level of US assistance) but had been pushed back to the Panjshir Valley, his base of support and was actually facing defeat when he was killed. The US "attack" on Afghanistan in September of 2001 was actually a very small Special Forces contingent (that had been there for a while, doing what the Green Beanies do best - training) leading, supporting, and (most importantly) offering air support to the Northern Alliance. This is what drove the Taliban out of power, and back to the Pashtun areas where it came from. Now what? In theory, very simple. Provide basic security, allow a legitmate government to take control and assist it in restoring basic services. Training the Afghans to protect themselves isn't all that hard (not easy though) Convincing the ones who really believe in and support the Taliban will be very hard if not impossible. Allowing them to "go legit" and become something like an "opposition party" has attractions, although a lot of danger. The legitimate government has recently become a major issue. It has been horribly corrupt. The election is clearly flawed. If the US allows it to stand, then the president will remain in power by stealing the election. If the US forces him out, then we will have put in a govenment of our choice, not theirs. My understanding is that we have made significant progress, not spectacular progress, but progress nonetheless. More troops to fight a semi-conventional war against the Taliban's normal spring offensive would probably be a good idea. Civil Affairs and engineers to help restore the infrastructure would also be a good idea. But what to do about the government??"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #43 October 6, 2009 QuoteAn American who doesn't want to follow international law - how surprising. Nice twist of my words and intentional misunderstanding. SC at its best. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #44 October 6, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I don't think the Soviets ever got it. They got it, up the ass, once we gave their indigenous enemy our Stinger missiles. Problem is, we gave them to the Taliban. Oopsie. Oh, boy. THERE WAS NO TALIBAN UNTIL THE LATE 90's! Actually, I thought about editing my post to refer to "the insurgents which (in part) gave rise to the Taliban", but I got lazy and didn't. And you caught it. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin Quote Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.[18] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[19] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #45 October 6, 2009 Quote The only publication to cover it on a regular basis was Soldier of Fortune magazine. While I would agree that the threat was not recognized or down-played for much too long, "only" is perhaps a bit hyperbolic. At least 110 publications & citations dealing with Taliban between 1980 & 1990. QuoteMy understanding is that we have made significant progress, not spectacular progress, but progress nonetheless. More troops to fight a semi-conventional war against the Taliban's normal spring offensive would probably be a good idea. Civil Affairs and engineers to help restore the infrastructure would also be a good idea. But what to do about the government?? Thanks for your comments. I share what I am reading as concerns w/r/t the legitimacy of the current Kabul government. And that extends beyond the elections this past August. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #46 October 6, 2009 I voted no. I think the US and the UK have enough troops in theatre it about time the rest of the coalition steped upto the plate. (Canadians aside) Germany and France have token forces as do most of the other countries many of whom won't deploy into 'dangerous' areas. Its pathetic, rather than send more Brits and Yanks sort the rest out. troop figures for the following countries are pathetic. Austria 4 Ireland 7 B&H 2 As for the Italians and Spanish? Why are they there at all, their lovers not fighters it seems. Not allowed to engage the enemy??? Then get the F*** out of the country and stop pretending to fight a war while posing around Kabul in their pretty uniforms. Sarkozy also needs to get his finger out of his Gallic ass and send the extra 5000 troops he keeps mumbling about.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #47 October 6, 2009 Quote well , so then, we trained all the new [Iraqi] security and police and defense forces for that country,,,, ( on the American taxpayers tab)... So, why not recommend that IRAQ... now send some of THOSE forces into this Afghan Quagmire,,,, and make global restitution for all the resources which THEY have received....???? Hmmm ... interesting idea. It's definitely out of the box. Logistical challenge. But even the suggestion would certainly make interesting politics, particularly w/r/t Iran. (How would all those Iraqi troops get to Afghanistan? ) Quote Frankly I believe in isolationism.... close our borders, the Hell with everybody, bring alllll of our manufacturing BACK into the USA, CUt CEO payroll by 90 % to finance it,, and RE-Invigorate Our own work force...with decent reasonable paying JOBS!!!! Quit poking our nose into everybody else's business, ( and making ENEMIES, in the process...) and finally recognize that our 21st century arrogance has put us well 'behind the 8 -ball' in terms of our clout, our stature in the world, our reputation, and our Confidence...... At the time the Soviet Union collapsed, American primacy was not viewed as arrogance. It was viewed as marking 'the end of history' and sign of victory of democracy & free market capitalism. In between then & now, a lot of things happened. Imo, part of it is we are a victim of own success: as far back as the Pres Eisenhower's inaugural speech there has been recognition that increasing the development of the world increases markets to which we can sell goods. In helping raise the status of other countries, new markets were created; we also created competitors economically and groups who were threatened culturally, e.g., radical Salafist & al Qa'eda backlash with goal of recreating the 7th C Islamic Caliphate. Not sure that the genie of the 'flat world' can be put back in the metaphorical bottle. What the world had in 1992 -- global US primacy -- may not be re-attainable. Quote to paraphrase, " those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it".. Concur. History is not predictive but it should not be ignored either. (That's a nerdgirl original, afaik ) The question is which history is the most informative. Vietnam is an informative start but also problematic. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is specious - we're neither looking to occupy nor fighting a conventional war nor is it a Cold War conflict. French in Algeria? British in Malaya? OEF-Philippines? Iraq after counterinsurgency strategy was introduced? The American Revolution? (We were a successful insurgency after all.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #48 October 6, 2009 Thanks for posting on the reasons behind your 'no' vote. I chuckled (perhaps a less than diplomatic response) at your comment w/r/t German troops. One meme I recall from Brussels this June was that if the Germans could get any further north they'd be in Tajikistan. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #49 October 6, 2009 Responding to the points made by BACEVICH QuoteContaining the threat posed by jihad should follow a similar strategy. Robust defenses are key -- not mechanized units patrolling the Iron Curtain, but well-funded government agencies securing borders, Who's borders? Sealing yourself in and ignoring the enemy only allows them greater freedom and movement. Only a halfwit terrorist would be caught by the yellow pack workers that are employed by border control. Quotecontrolling access to airports and seaports, Actually controlling access or making the public 'feel' safer? Are airports and seaports not controled to the best of the lacking ability of border agencies at the moment? If not why not? Quoteand ensuring the integrity of electronic networks that have become essential to our way of life. Technology keeps overtaking ICT security progress, good idea in principle but very difficult to negate the human screw up factor QuoteAs during the Cold War, a strategy of containment should include comprehensive export controls and the monitoring of international financial transactions. Without money and access to weapons, the jihadist threat shrinks to insignificance: All that remains is hatred. This statement alone demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the enemy and his tactics and stratergy. The cold war was fought against states. This is fought against organised and loosely organised groups and individuals following a doctrine of hatred. The funding is not only from donations around across the world but also often not using traditional banking/financial structures (The Tailban et al didn't have a rough time because of Lehman brothers going under) Money is also raised from the Heroin that is produced and exported. Now last time I checked there was already a ban on such trade. As for weapons, anyone who has ever been to Dara market would know that they make them themselves, if you want a good copy of a AK thats the place to be. Also as I remember the 9/11 terrorists brought down three airliners using knifes. I went through a airport twice this week carrying razors in my hand luggage and they confiscated my contact solution as it was 120 mL not 100mL and let me kept the razors. Go figure! QuoteIdeally, this approach should include strenuous efforts to reduce the West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which serves to funnel many billions of dollars into the hands of people who may not wish us well.” They already have billions, if anything it would only serve to accelerate the funding against the west.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #50 October 6, 2009 Quote Thanks for posting on the reasons behind your 'no' vote. I chuckled (perhaps a less than diplomatic response) at your comment w/r/t German troops. One meme I recall from Brussels this June was that if the Germans could get any further north they'd be in Tajikistan. /Marg LOL.. Yep, and their quite safe posting has bitten them on the bumWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
