T Nation

Afganistan Strategy Debacle

Interesting article about Counter Insurgency Warfare and how little the current administration understands military matters.

Cost of hiring a president with no experience running anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews

[quote]hedo wrote:
Interesting article about Counter Insurgency Warfare and how little the current administration understands military matters.

Cost of hiring a president with no experience running anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews[/quote]

With all due respect, Bush II knew dick about COIN also. His answer to everything was, “More war! STay the course! Nation building!111!” AfPak hasn’t been a successful part of the world since its pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist days.

We have 2 choices for “succeeding” there: 1) ethnic cleansing or 2) getting the hell out. Anyone here voting for wiping out a few million Pashtuns? Anyone? Anyone? I didn’t think so. Actually, there is a third option that also works: ginning up Sunni/Shi’a tension and capitalizing on it. We should support Arab nationalism and work it up into a Ba’athist-era frenzy. We should give weapons and money to the Uzbeks and other Shi’a in AfPak and Yemen. We should pop some popcorn and watch the sparks fly while the Iranian Shi’a start looking like even more of a threat to the Arabs and their hegemony over Islam. That would work.

Meanwhile, they appear to be working us up into a frenzy over Iran. Shockingly, Americans actually favor a third war:

Iran is not our concern. Iran does not threaten us.

I have been a proponent of arming the Uzbegs and telling them they could regain the empire of Shaibani which was lost in the 1500’s.

The only problem with working up Arab Nationalism now is it’s all wrapped up in Al-Qaeda, who are not our allies.

Had we come to terms with Saddam instead of invading Iraq, we possibly could have armed him and made him defender of the Sunni Arabs. In the early 90’s when al-Qaeda wanted to free Kuwait from Saddam, we should have let them give it a shot. Saddam’s forces could have destroyed them in their infancy and it would have been 1 more problem not to have to deal with.

Any opinions on this?

I read something about this a few weeks back and it pissed me off some…

The Taliban says we should re-read history because all invaders were driven out of Afghanistan, like the British and Alexander The Great.

The second part is wrong. Alexander made it all the way into India. It was his followers, after his death who had become weaker, who were defeated by the ancient tribal warlords.

The Taliban’s the ones who need to re-read history.

It’s not so much about how much or how little the administration understands military matters as how much they underestimate the resolve of the Afghans (I lump them all into one easy package).

Plain and simple, they have foreign invaders on their soil and are doing their best to get them out and take out as many as possible in the process. What part of GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN is not clear to our so called military leaders?

The whole situation is simply un-winnable. Everyone with two functioning brain cells can see that, yet the farce is dragged out longer and many of our young men die for nothing.

BG

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
hedo wrote:
Interesting article about Counter Insurgency Warfare and how little the current administration understands military matters.

Cost of hiring a president with no experience running anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews

With all due respect, Bush II knew dick about COIN also. His answer to everything was, “More war! STay the course! Nation building!111!” AfPak hasn’t been a successful part of the world since its pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist days.

We have 2 choices for “succeeding” there: 1) ethnic cleansing or 2) getting the hell out. Anyone here voting for wiping out a few million Pashtuns? Anyone? Anyone? I didn’t think so. Actually, there is a third option that also works: ginning up Sunni/Shi’a tension and capitalizing on it. We should support Arab nationalism and work it up into a Ba’athist-era frenzy. We should give weapons and money to the Uzbeks and other Shi’a in AfPak and Yemen. We should pop some popcorn and watch the sparks fly while the Iranian Shi’a start looking like even more of a threat to the Arabs and their hegemony over Islam. That would work.

Meanwhile, they appear to be working us up into a frenzy over Iran. Shockingly, Americans actually favor a third war:

Iran is not our concern. Iran does not threaten us. [/quote]

The Iraqi insurgency was defeated using COIN techniques supported by Bush. Your second paragraph is COIN in theory.

What Americans favor a third war?

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
It’s not so much about how much or how little the administration understands military matters as how much they underestimate the resolve of the Afghans (I lump them all into one easy package).

Plain and simple, they have foreign invaders on their soil and are doing their best to get them out and take out as many as possible in the process. What part of GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN is not clear to our so called military leaders?

The whole situation is simply un-winnable. Everyone with two functioning brain cells can see that, yet the farce is dragged out longer and many of our young men die for nothing.

BG [/quote]

Un-winnable hardly. We might not have the stomach for winning but it’s hardly un-winnable.

[quote]hedo wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
hedo wrote:
Interesting article about Counter Insurgency Warfare and how little the current administration understands military matters.

Cost of hiring a president with no experience running anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews

With all due respect, Bush II knew dick about COIN also. His answer to everything was, “More war! STay the course! Nation building!111!” AfPak hasn’t been a successful part of the world since its pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist days.

We have 2 choices for “succeeding” there: 1) ethnic cleansing or 2) getting the hell out. Anyone here voting for wiping out a few million Pashtuns? Anyone? Anyone? I didn’t think so. Actually, there is a third option that also works: ginning up Sunni/Shi’a tension and capitalizing on it. We should support Arab nationalism and work it up into a Ba’athist-era frenzy. We should give weapons and money to the Uzbeks and other Shi’a in AfPak and Yemen. We should pop some popcorn and watch the sparks fly while the Iranian Shi’a start looking like even more of a threat to the Arabs and their hegemony over Islam. That would work.

Meanwhile, they appear to be working us up into a frenzy over Iran. Shockingly, Americans actually favor a third war:

Iran is not our concern. Iran does not threaten us.

The Iraqi insurgency was defeated using COIN techniques supported by Bush. Your second paragraph is COIN in theory.

What Americans favor a third war?

[/quote]

“COIN” in Iraq involved bribing all of the tribes not to fight one another and to give up Al Qaeda in exchange for money. Bush had nothing to do with it, he just let Patreus fix things.

Bush II was a bungler.

Looks like Pakistan just regained their will to fight. How ironic Al Qaeda attack on them to weaken their resolve just made it stronger.

Now Al Qaeda will be getting bombed relentlessly on both sides. Pakistan has said they are going to attack. Now if we send the troops over like the Generals want we can end this once and for all.

[quote]hedo wrote:
beachguy498 wrote:
It’s not so much about how much or how little the administration understands military matters as how much they underestimate the resolve of the Afghans (I lump them all into one easy package).

Plain and simple, they have foreign invaders on their soil and are doing their best to get them out and take out as many as possible in the process. What part of GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN is not clear to our so called military leaders?

The whole situation is simply un-winnable. Everyone with two functioning brain cells can see that, yet the farce is dragged out longer and many of our young men die for nothing.

BG

Un-winnable hardly. We might not have the stomach for winning but it’s hardly un-winnable.[/quote]

What qualifies us as “winning”? When the bad guy terrorists are all in jail, dead or sign oaths that they will ceast and desist from practicing their craft? Maybe we should give them all free Xbox 360s and unlimited online gaming for life and 42" plasma TVs.

BG

Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success!

It’s going to be difficult to turn around 8 years of failure under Bush’s policy. I don’t think Americans think it’s worth staying there for another 20 years and spending a trillion dollars… the mission has never been clear. What is victory, exactly? Bush could never define it. You can’t sell the mission as being ‘good triumphs over evil’ or ‘we kill all the terrorists’ - that is way too vague.

We’ll see what Obama does… hopefully draws down troop levels and concentrates on confinement and training. The Afghani government is a mess and not worth propping up, except to prevent total chaos. I don’t think there are any good options, but probably the worst is to escalate our involvement and commit to another 8 years of very little progress.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Iran is not our concern. Iran does not threaten us. [/quote]

Agree!

i don’t think Iran threatens Israel, either. The Israelis would absolutely flatten Iran, if they were attacked. Iran is not suicidal.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success![/quote]

Just out of curiosity, what did you do in the Army?

The only person having a debacle is obama, because he is a fool. He is still entertaining the idea of negotiating with the taliban even after they told him to fuck himself…Since when do we even entertain the idea of any kind of dialog what so ever, with terrorists? Only a fool would.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Interesting article about Counter Insurgency Warfare and how little the current administration understands military matters.

Cost of hiring a president with no experience running anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews [/quote]

He can sure rally a community. Man can he give a speech too.

[quote]pat wrote:
The only person having a debacle is obama, because he is a fool. He is still entertaining the idea of negotiating with the taliban even after they told him to fuck himself…Since when do we even entertain the idea of any kind of dialog what so ever, with terrorists? Only a fool would. [/quote]

Anything we could think to offer, they wouldn’t want it. We’re far better off letting them do their thing in their own neck of the woods and we’ll do our thing here. It is well established that they are pretty resiliant and toughen up even as we throw more shit their way.

BG

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success!

Just out of curiosity, what did you do in the Army? [/quote]

Field Artillery Officer.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success!

Just out of curiosity, what did you do in the Army?

Field Artillery Officer.

[/quote]

I’m trying to determine whether you’re more of a Takimag guy or a Huffington Post kinda guy.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success!

Just out of curiosity, what did you do in the Army?

Field Artillery Officer.

I’m trying to determine whether you’re more of a Takimag guy or a Huffington Post kinda guy. [/quote]

Been visiting Takimag alot lately. The Germanic paganism vs. Christianity debate seems to be stirring things up recently. Also, there’s the atheistic Paleo-Con/Libertarian side jumping in. A bit of infighting?