Afghanistan - part deux (or Obama's war now)
 

It's Obama's war now. I'm okay with it. Forget the failures/lack of attention of the past and let's get the job done.

The new strategy (as I understand it) is to focus more on the larger population areas. Seems counter intuitive to me, would think we should put troops all around the mountainous areas and hunt them down ...

Iraq has stabilized and the democracy that evolves there will be interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how the Afghanistan/Pakistan story turns out.

Gibbs: Security team gets new Afghan policy - White House- msnbc.com

Why not enlist and help them "get the job done"?

Do you have to join the police in order to root for lower crime rates too?

Iraq hasn't solved any of it's internal problems and it looks likely that elections will be postponed. The surge bought time, but without political reconciliation it will have been a failure.

Afghanistan's strategy seems based heavily on the Soviet model. We have to hope that the differences between now and the 80s(no external power arming the resistance, less brutality by the occupying army) are enough to overcome the historic difficulty of pacifying that part of the world. Personally, I'm willing to give it some time provided a clear exit strategy is articulated, without that it's just extending our imperial folly.

God bless the troops in harm's way and those about to be.

Nope, but a police officer can quit at anytime. They are not 18 years of age and plucked right out of high school either. And most importantly, the mortality rate isn't even close.

If you are passionate enough about a cause that you feel is worth the sacrifice of American lives, I think it's fair to ask why you are not on the front lines with those you feel should be giving up their lives for this cause.

But if the primary focus is on the exit & not the victory then we might as leave tomorrow because they'll simply wait us out. (And God help us all if he's idiotic enough to even get near the word "timetable" except to say that none exists).

They can wait us out anyway, it's their country. How much blood and treasure are you willing to sacrifice to hold together a country that's never been held together in its history? Its been almost a decade and we haven't accomplished much of anything. When did the utopian dream of building nations from sand become conservative ideology?

Fred Kaplan sums up where I'm at:

yeah - i'd rather just get out at this point.

people act like that's some big disrespect to the soldiers who have given their lives - i'm pretty sure that they would likely be comforted to know that no more of their brothers would be giving their lives.

As long as we play at war instead of making war, you're (sadly) probably right.


"Building nations" has absolutely zero to do with my feelings about Afghanistan or any other sandpit in the region. Never has, can't imagine it ever will.

Lets give credit where credit is due. As of now, Iraq has come a long way in a little under 2 years when the surge started.

I think many of us, 2 years ago, would have said that current state would not have been possible.

Sorry, not able to. But I appreciate your constructive comments.

it's all smoke and mirrors.

All our soldiers are volunteers. A large number of our soldiers in Afghanistan/Iraq certainly joined after 9/11. Another large group chose to re-enlist since then. For the large number of our soldiers, "plucked" is not the right word and somewhat demeans their sacrifice.

I think this thread will finally allow us to come to consensus and solve the problem.

Unlike the fifteen previous ones.

My friend carol's son died there this year due to an IED.

On one hand I hope we level the place.
On the other, though, I don't want anyone else to feel the pain I've seen in her eyes.

You can substitute whatever verb you like. It is not demeaning in any way and what they are asked to do is courageous beyond any words I could write.

What demeans their sacrifice is when people sitting behind a computer decide there is a cause worthy of someone else's kid dying for. When someone says "lets get this done" as if we are standing on the frontlines with them. When we discuss a war with such nonchalante phrases as "it'll be interesting to see what happens". Or when we compare being a soldier on the frontlines of these countries to being a police officer in our own country.

It's not a personal attack, I just don't think it's right to discuss war like it was a game of Risk. I think if there is a cause that someone is passionate enough to send other people's children to sacrifice their life over, you should be willing to sacrifice your own or your child's as well.

Make it a desert call it peace

You overstate my "passion". The reality is we are there, Obama is not pulling us out ... it is what it is. While we are there, lets get it done.

Your use of "plucked" implies it was involuntary and without consideration. I was just pointing out to the contrary.

Beyond your above statement on sacrificing our soldiers, care to share your stance on Afghanistan and our participation there?

Sorry to hear.

Not really problem solving, just discussing. What's interesting about this one is:

1. GB is not around to kick anymore. Different leadership, different party.
2. We will have more US troops in Afghanistan than ever before.
3. We can't hide the fact that it was a sham election and we are supporting a somewhat discredited President.

How, then, do you define victory? Kill the leaders of AQ and the Taliban? What about their deputies? And their deputies? And the kids who'll lose fathers and grow up to replace them? Do we keep escalating forever to stop the threat?

From at least the Romans to the French in Algeria, foreign powers almost never win in countries that resist, regardless of the level of brutality. What makes you think this time will be different?

The only real solution is to avoid leaving two stones stacked together & anything left to breed. Anything less & somebody ends up dealing with the same mess down the road.

An imperfect but short to mid range solution is take advantage of the greater efficiency afforded by modern technologies & eliminate anything that so much as blinks wrong. As it is we're ultimately just playing at war & we've already seen how well that works, circa the 1960's.

Interesting article on BBC on other countries pledging additional troops along with the increased US surge. It seems to have been a coordinated effort with Nato.

BBC News - Brown commits 500 more UK troops to Afghanistan

By plucked I mean enlisting 18 year olds straight out of high school who often times do not have a ton of options. We don't trust them to drink a Budweiser, but we do trust them to make a decision that could ultimately end their life in a violent manner.

The voluntary notion is kind of a misnomer. You can't voluntarily leave at anytime. There is no other voluntary job in this country where you get thrown in jail for quitting. I'd also add that I am someone who believes in a draft and/or mandatory military service for all citizens.

I think Afghanistan is a shithole that is centuries behind the rest of the civilized world. I don't think anyone in there now had much to do with 9/11 and I don't think occupying their land or bombing their huts is going to stop another attack in the future. I don't agree with Jon's belief in bombing every living thing in the country, but he's right that nothing will change by going into a war unless you destroyed it. These people aren't going to change how they live their lives or how they want to be governed because some "infidels" invade and tell them to. They'll outlast any occupation. Time is money to us, time is inconsequential to them.

My solution would be to get out of the Middle East outside of intelligence missions. Secure our borders and increase our intelligence and security. Find a way to run a motor vehicle on something other than oil and let them run around chopping each others heads off in the name of Allah for the next couple centuries.

I don't agree with Jon's idea/plan, but he's right. You are either in a war or you're not. Going in half assed ends up in these neverending occupations that has the country chasing its own tail.

+1

I was in favor of dethroning the Taliban when we were trying to apprehend/kill Al Qaeda, I was in favor of Iraq when we believed there was WMD and they would not comply with inspectors to prove otherwise. Both of these were won by conventional military measures initially, but were stagnated by playing PC games/politics with war. I believe we will do the same with this effort...so I don't believe it to be worthwhile.

If we truly believe military action is necessary then we should be willing to win. This means soldiers/terrorists/enemy militia that are chased into huts...huts get destroyed. Chase them into a Mosque...Mosque gets leveled. Unsure if they are in this building or that building over there? Level them both. There just isn't any other way to discourage that behavior than to...discourage that behavior by ensuring they realize no place is "safe" or "off limits".

But we don't have the conviction of being right about our efforts. Nor do we have the conviction or stomach for the rest of the world's criticism of us. I know many will say "That's what Bush did", etc, etc. But he really didnt. He talked like he was going to do that, but our actions prove he wasnt willing to do that. I would rather have a President not talk up such things...but just simply let our soldiers do them...if we believe it worthwhile to even be there.

OK, let's start by defining what the "job" is.


OK, how many troops do you think this will take?


You've got to be kidding me. Let's put off the talking about the evolution of their democracy until their government has some modicum of relevance. Right now it's only the U.S. presence that's keeping the Sunnis and Shiites from going at each other again, for now they're just biding their time, and in the meantime the Kurds are making hay with their basically autonomous state.

Five years after the U.S. leaves Iraq will be three things:

1. A basically autonomous Kurdish state
2. A client state of Iran
3. Partly under the control of the Saudi military (the parts boarding Saudi Arabia)

The U.S. military and Obama to a lesser extent have refused to commit more troops if NATO wasn't going to hold up its end of the bargain. Some level of NATO support was required for any surge, even when Bush was in the last months of office considering it.

By what measures?

This is a relevant question, because our measures for success in these scenarios have obviously been lacking since at least the Vietnam War (and possibly since the Korean War).


I agree, to a point, but I think the key issue is not necessarily going in half-assed, but not having a clear goal for the aftermath in mind that is based in reality.

The root problem, that the Bush Administration never understood, is that neither of these countries are actually countries, but artificial constructions of colonial powers that brought disparate groups together, geographically, and were kept together (if at all) by mainly tyrannical forces (the Taliban, Hussein, etc...).

So if you take away the tyrannical power structure, what's to keep the country together? What's going to make these disparate groups work together to create a peaceful state, to say nothing of the Western-allied, democratic states the Bush Administration promised? Well, nothing, basically, as we've found out.

So now we're left propping up governments that have only the barest of legitimacy and precious little relevance to the countries they supposedly govern. I would say that our "goal" now has somehow become to convince the populace (through the provision of security, infrastructure, amenities, building projects, etc...) that they should support their government. That's a very, very tough task, especially when both governments are artificial constructions anyway.


All of which is a roundabout way of saying that I think we need to make some hard decisions grounded in reality about both of these countries. In Afghanistan, what's it going to take to make the country get behind the Karzai government, and can we support that price? What happens if we just leave, and are we OK with that result? And the same questions for Iraq.

this is really the key problem, more than anything else.

these aren't "nations" as we understand them in the Western world. Much like the rest of the Middle East they're artificial constructs of Great Britain (primarily) and the other colonial powers. They don't have any desire or need (for the most part, particularly in Afghanistan) to be part of a larger nation - they simply want to be left alone.

In Iraq you can argue it might be a little different - due to the progress made under Hussein in making Iraq really a "Second World" country, but the problem is that without him there driving that progress and stomping-down the ethnic divisions (through focusing hatred on Iran and energy on progress and conflict with Iran) and with the continued instability a lot of that progress has dissapeared and the dispirate ethnic groups have gone back to their old infighting.

Leave both of the cesspools and focus on a strong and efficient military, rather than a spread thin and glaring mess of one. That politicians can't see past their egos (because they are afraid of looking weak and not getting elected, they will BE WEAK, and still probably not get elected).

And if we really care about our troops, instead of blowing money in the budget on overpriced junk, invest in making each soldier a super powered bad-ass with a good wage, instead of an often 'meh' wage (considering you are being shot at especially) and a benefits package the politicians are always fiddling with to pinch pennies.

Beef up the ability to aggressively and 'safely' knock out dangerous targets, and don't get involved in dragged out occupations. To be honest, I'm pretty much on Jon's side here... if something is a threat, level it as quickly as possible and move on. If we started the Afghanistan engagement with that philosophy instead of a broad invasion we probably would have chopped the snake's head clean off, and left behind a vacuum where they are scrambling for power over each other, than uniting to resist us. Let their own greed encourage them to do most of the work for us.

What looks weak is a country that doesn't know what the fuck it is doing and why, not one that is a pig-headed moron thinking we need to solve the problems of people that don't want solutions. War is for beating the shit out of someone, not for 'making the world a better place for those poor unfortunate peasants'.

Like with any issue of military/national security, the president has more information than any the observers, and I trust him to make the right decision.

If we leave Afghanistan tomorrow - the Taliban takes control of the country in about 8 minutes. Is that acceptable? If it is, then by all means, get out. On the one hand, it is what we had pre 9/11 and nobody was particularly concerned. Nobody was raising alarms about their potential influence over nuclear Pakistan. If that a concern now?

Obama hasn't really yet articulated the goals here. Maybe there's a reason not to. Who the hell knows.

If we left Iraq-, pre-surge, as so many wanted, what would be the state of that country today? Would we be back there again? Sometimes, the solution to a goal as complicated as a more peaceful world isn't as obvious as it seems.

+1

I don't often agree with your posts as you most likely don't with mine on these politically charged ones though I infrequently post in them but this is an insightful post and I agree with it.

I don't concur that the president is the smartest man in the room to begin with...

That said, I actually do think the vacuum after a U.S. exit is preferable to the cost. Especially when the supposed benefit is a corrupt government that will guarantee the increase of a vacuum INSIDE THE US, and will inevitably fall anyway to its own shenanigans.

You want to defuse nuclear Pakistan, or nuclear Iran, you find a way to do it smart and directly... not randomly propping up puppet governments and hoping the house of cards doesn't fall anyway.

My position is not just to avoid loss, its because the 'gain' is no benefit to our national security at all. In fact, 1 troop or a million in afghanistan is not going to make it any less likely some terrorist will hijack a plane and ram it into a building again. If anything, it may be increasing the chance (deflecting attention and resources away from shoring up internal defense, and reducing the ability to infiltrate and collect intelligence on these attempts).

My brother's best friend is in the Army Corps of Engineers over in Afghanistan. From what he's said, Afghanistan is a hopeless case. He is a higher up in the Corps when it comes to building Afghanistan's infrastructure (roads, etc..).

We are definitely helping their infrastructure at the moment but he says that the Afghan's have absolutely no concept of maintenance. As soon as we leave, the roads will go to hell again because they don't have the money or desire to keep them up.

He makes a handsome paycheck over there but he isn't under any illusion that he is doing any long-term good for the country.

I did not get a chance to hear Obama's speech and I did not read anything about his definition of "job" ... imo, the job is four pronged.

1. Military
2. Political
3. Economic
4. Help Pakistan

Its not sequential, they all need to occur in parallel. Making good progress on all 4 will marginalize/minimize support for AQ/Taliban and set Afghanistan on its way. Obviously, this is easier said than done.

I don't know how many billions are needed to do all 4. We seem to be spending the military power but not investing in the political or economic.

Don't know. I will defer to the military. Petraeus thought 40K, Obama is saying 30K. I do not understand why Obama did not just defer to Petraeus' judgement and give him what he says he needs. Even with 30K, he's already PO'd the Dems that want to pull out.

I don't know how to discuss this with you. No one is saying its perfect but if the progress over the past 2 years is not evident to you, there is nothing I can add to convince you. So lets agree to disagree here.

Don't disagree but the legitimacy question is interesting. We don't think Karzai is legit because of the election. But he does have the support of the Pashtun which is the largest group.

Zakaria: Stop trashing Karzai and help him govern - CNN.com

I believe the majority of soldiers would say that we should finish the job in Afghanistan.

The problem is there does not seem to be a coherent strategy right now other than 'leave with honor'. As public support wanes, soldiers morale will also decrease.

I tihnk if we pull out 'prematurely' from Aghanistan and it falls, there would be major negative ramifications to US leadership, NATO relations, Pakistan etc. IMO, it is better to get the 'job' done. I think the US needs to project its resolve and strength right now.

While I appreciate you trying to describe the "job", your reply illustrates the problem: a lack of specific goals, a lack of measurable results, and an actual plan with milestones and checkpoints.

So basically we need to continue to pour lives and billions of dollars into Afghanistan in the hope that an improvement in the military situation, the government's efficacy, the economy and Pakistan's security situation will, at some point, create a situation where we think we can leave safely without it all falling apart.

Honestly, I think we'd have better luck reaching this somewhat ephemeral goal if we gave $25 billion to a well-respected NGO to attempt to improve lives in the region, $25 billion to a blackops mercenary company to systematically hunt down and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders and $25 billion to a bunch of mean-spirited financial auditors to track down and freeze funds sent through the international financial system for Al Qaeda.


I doubt we're talking billions. I think we're talking trillions, when it's all said and done. And to what end? It boggles the mind that we're tied in knots as a country over spending mere billions to give health insurance to millions of Americans, but we're considerable less concerned about potentially spending trillions to, er, do something in Afghanistan (to say nothing of Iraq).


That's not what I asked. You said:


I asked how many troops did you think it would take to put them "all around the mountainous areas and hunt (Al Qaeda) down". Based on our experience in Iraq, and a cursory knowledge of geography in the region, I think we're talking hundreds of thousands, depending, again, on your goal here.


I didn't say there hadn't been progress. This is what you wrote:


I'm taking exception to the view that Iraq has "stabilized". By what measure has it stabilized? I doubt many Iraqis think it's particularly stable right now. And then I'm also taking exception to the assumption that Iraq's "democracy" will "evolve". For one, I'm not sure it's really a democracy. For two, there's plenty of indications that it will not, in fact, evolve.


We need to stop looking at both of these endeavors through rose-tinted glasses as a collection of best-case scenarios.

Fareed Zakaria is full of shit. One of the most key characteristics of corruption is that it undermines and makes irrelevant basic political order.

If he really wants to ensure the effective use of political power in Afghanistan, then we should let the Karzai government collapse and allow Afghanistan to be ruled by a collection of regional warlords who possess a clear, direct, and unambiguous influence over their various regions.

I disagree that Iraq or Afghanistan projects strength or resolve. People look at Vietnam and laugh at the US... internally and abroad. Well laugh if they are evil, vomit in horror and sadness otherwise.

In short, its an ego trip, in my opinion. I learned this lesson by the time I was 12... ya you can kick some ass and finish a fight, and say they started it, but you still end up paying the price, you still probably haven't solved anything, and you still look dumb and/or weak (and if not, you just encourage/instigate the next person who wants to prove themselves against you).

You break out the war option when you have a plan or a need. We have neither. To do less is disrespectful to the soldiers under your command.

Good discussion.

What bothers me particularly is why our respective governments pander to the notion that we must have a definite exit date. This makes our countries the laughing stock of the insurgents. The British learned a long time ago that if you want to effect meaningful change as an occupying force, you have to be prepared to occupy for at least two generations. If you don't have that resolve, don't occupy. That said, don't throw up your hands and ignore the problem. Take whatever military action is necessary to to keep the terrorists off balance. Accept that there will be regrettable civilian casualties because the insurgents sure don't give a damn. Make the locals learn the hard way that giving refuge to terrorists will cause them harm and soon the insurgents will all have to live in the mountain caves.

I'm not for bombing the entire country, but I have no sympathy for those who give refuge to the terrorists.

On a much brighter personal note related to the region, that soldier who is so dear to my family is home on leave, feet dry & home on leave as of about 4 hours ago. That's 15 days where our collective household worry level can go down considerably, at least until he returns to finish the last 75 days or so left on his tour.

He left on a bit of a close call though, his base was hit by insurgents in a fairly coordinated attack just before he was pulled off the line for travel. Just as he & three others reached the perimeter to take up defensive positions they heard an explosion behind them, looking back in time to see the position they were sleeping in a few minutes earlier go up with a bang courtesy of a well placed RPG.

In response, he said they laughed while returning fire since, well, what else could they do but laugh under the circumstances?

Glad to hear your soldier friend is safe, Jon. Lord knows I wish that daily level of worry on no one.

Thanks flere, Lord knows there ain't a lot of agreement between us but on that subject I'm confident our feelings are mutual.

Of course the need for worry (and prayer if you're so inclined) never really ends. I noticed a little while ago that his only Facebook post since landing was to tell his friends back there that he was on the ground & to stay safe themselves until he got back.

I'd like a nice quiet next 90 days over there at least but after talking to him this morning I don't get a sense that's going to be the case. One of the first things he told me was how much smarter the opposition had gotten in the time he'd be there, with better timing & coordination as well as noticeable tactical improvements vs what they saw initially. Part of that is probably from him changing areas of operations but I'm afraid a good bit of that "improvement" is more a function of Darwinism, where the ones that survive get smarter. Our guys definitely aren't expecting things to slow down any & he said that for the past few weeks they were actually at greater risk when they weren't on a mission they when they were out further afield.

Hopefully, the word "hope" does not really describe Petreaus strategy. I do not know what 30K vs 40K does to his strategy but I saw him on TV supporting Obama. I would hope he would be a guy to retire gracefully if he really did not believe he could do the 'job'.


Lets settle on 1 trillion+ over 10-12 years? Not sure how accurate they are, but here is a quote on war-to-date.
Cost of War | National Priorities Project

Not a military strategist, just voicing an opinion that it seemed counter intuitive. My best guess is as approx 60K was not already good enough, maybe double the number under the assumption that Pakistan does their part on their side of the border (or allows us some leeway to enter theirs).

So you believe there has been progress but Iraq has not 'stabilized'? I think they go in parallel ... or are you saying there has been progress but Iraq has not 'stabilized enough'?

I certainly think Iraqis think it has stabilized as compared to 2 years ago. Do you really believe otherwise?

If we pull out and don't complete the 'job', it will certainly not be projecting strength or resolve. My point is that we need to continue/escalate projection of strength and resolve.

People look at Vietnam and laugh at the US because we did not complete the 'job'.

Good to hear he is back.

When you get a chance, I think we would be interested in his perspective on how its currently going, if the new plan will work, what is the 'job', what does he think the end result will be.

Lets agree to disagree.

Edward, I have a considerable amount of respect for you and the number of threads you've mainly managed to keep on topic, but if we're going to have a meaningful discussion here, you need to start defining your terms, otherwise you're simply being too vague to engage in a reasonable back-and-forth.


Define "stabilized". Your original post, the one to which I responded, said "Iraq has stabilized". Define that. Merely progressing isn't the same as "stabilized". The Detroit Lions have progressed as a team in the space of a year. They're still not a good team, nor could one take their continued progression for granted.


I'll ask again: what's "the job" we're trying to complete, in your mind?

In my opinion there is no 'job' in Iraq or Afghanistan worth completing, yet alone one that will costs billions of dollars and more importantly hundreds if not thousands of more lives (American and otherwise).

There is no economic, strategic, or national security issue we can improve upon with a half-assed occupation strategy. The warmonger in me would even prefer a real occupation strategy (which not even the right hard liners would be able to fathom, as they are as cowardly as their liberal counterparts) to the mess we are perpetuating here.

But since I lack faith in our ability to do such, and the overall cost/benefit of such a scheme anyway (I personally think at the ideal the place is an energy sink, and nigh impossible to manage strategically)... I prefer the alternative, pull out forces from occupation duty, leaving minimal training and diplomatic personnel if we so decide, and perhaps dedicating a task force to annhilating targets of our particular interest (say major Al Qaeda camps we might here of)... .but pull out the vast majority of our resources and rebuild our war readiness for a real threat. Perhaps even throw a bunch of that muscle into domestic counter-terrorism (in the form of better intel, better screening of immigrants and part-time visitors, and beefed up security at our bases all over the world).

Tell me one way shooting a bunch of afghanis or iraqis is going to lead to a decreased threat here at home? All we are doing is giving them easy targets they can ambush, assaulting strong points of the enemy only to abandon them later for them to be reoccupied again.... in short we are twiddling our thumbs in blood. We can do that just as well in Germany, without the war widows or trillion dollar bill.

You project strength when your intel uncovers an Al Qaeda base that formed up once they thought they were safe, and you precision bomb the shit out of it along with getting several thousand troops in there at the same time to squeeze the hell out of anyone trying to escape. You kill the threat, you leave, and you give them no little victories to cheer about. You leave a pile of bodies and a strong border they can't penetrate to retaliate...

As for nation building, if that is our goal we need to go about it entirely differently. We don't even understand how to build up the US, yet alone some desert full of people that have nothing better than to kill each other.

Not sure I could have said it much better myself...

As I have stated from the very beginning....something had to be done. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were key to the global terrorism threat. If you really wanted to do something about it, that is.

The risk was all on the back-side of the invasions. What would happen after we over-threw these two rogue governments? The hope was (and apparently still is with President Obama at the helm) that we will rid ourselves of two very hostile and dangerous foes that were hell-bent on destabilizing the entire Middle East. The grandest misconception that is perpetuated today by opponents of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was that it is only *now* that the Middle East has destabilized areas. It is only *now* that Iraq and Afghanistan are civil strife. It is only *now* that terrorists want to lash out at western civilization.

All, of course, is blatantly (and by political design) false. The questions that one who is not on the left or not on the right must ask themselves is, "Where would Iraq and Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda be today if the USA never invaded at all?"

Do we remember Iraq's (Saddam Hussein's) leading role in the terror market and his payoffs of multitudes of suicide bombers against Israel or the Taliban in it's extremem fundamentalism that housed the most destructive and powerful terrorist organization in the world? I'm guessing we'd be somewhere closer to that, just 8 years more matured in their efforts.

As for stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is only a myth that the dictatorships of the Baath and Taliban had stable nations that did not simply create the illusion of stability through violent oppression. While these nations today have decent chances to form into functional democracies, the common misconception is that they had any chance at all under the old repressive and illigitimate regimes that once ruled these lands.

Another misconception from opponents is that America offers Iraq and Afghanistan a *guarantee* of starting up a successful responsible nation among the world's other nations. That is not true. America has always promised them a *chance*. The wars have never been without risk. That is true. There have been many obstacles to success. Ultimately, the USA and Britian and our allies have done nothing but provide opportunity. It is up to the Iraqi's and Afghanistani's to produce now.

Whether you agree or disagree, I firmly believe that progress is being made in Iraq. And likewise I firmly believe that progress is about to be made in Afghanistan. We are nearing a point where we can really say what the status of these two nations are. A status that is really only possible over time. Obviously, "is progress being made fast enough?" is the most important question now.

overthrowing saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the global "war on terror." saddam was no friend of radical islam - in fact quite the opposite.

The way to beat terrorists is to take away their safe haven. Unfortunately that's moved to northern Pakistan, so we need to keep working on Pakistan's government. But we also need to keep Afghanistan dangerous for them.

Plus fighting over there means we aren't fighting over here.

We could go on and on about this misconception as well. Saddam was very well schooled in the use of terrorism as a weapon of war. He used it countless times in Israel to kill thousands of civilians all in the hope of destabilizing the region and bringing another Isreali war to the region.

As I've stated before, I imagine this will come as news to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies who have foiled numerous plots either planned or underway on U.S. soil.

Good point. I've noticed their success rate has gone way up since the Patriot Act was signed.

You mean since October 26, 2001, when it was signed by George W. Bush?

:D

Seriously, though, it's clear that the less-contentious aspects of the Patriot Act that modernized law enforcement on a federal level and took away a number of the bureaucratic walls that were a contributing factor to not catching 9/11 in time, have helped in these efforts. The efficacy of the more contentious aspects of the Patriot Act remain in some doubt, and that's at least part of the reason why some were allowed to sunset or were revised.

Having said that, if the strategy of "fighting them over there" means we don't have to fight them over here, then why even need a Patriot Act? Clearly not even the Bush Administration believed wars in Afghanistan & Iraq would completely tie up international terrorist groups. Unless, of course, you believe the Bush Administration wanted the Patriot Act merely to consolidate Executive power and spy more on Americans. ;)

Ugh, there is a new power in town. In case you haven't noticed, they are Democrats...and Bush still wants the Patriot Act in place. I think it expires December 31st btw. I'm not sure what is going on with it honestly...you know, with all the news stories on Tiger Woods an all... :)

Hey, if you think the key to defending the nation is not multi-layered, I think you may find yourself a big proponent of the former security baseline that became obsolete around 2001. Personally, I'm a fan of multiple layers of defense.

Why does this argument always have to come back to some sort of comment that implies that I want to hamper our government's ability to defend our nation?

And anyway, what part of what I wrote makes you come to that conclusion?

As I've said time and time again, I fully believe we need a smart and sophisticated solution to deal with the sophisticated threat of 21st-century international terrorism.

To me, it all comes down to efficacy. We've spent 5000 American lives and $1 trillion "taking the fight to them" and yet Al Qaeda continue to plan and set in motion attacks on U.S. soil (which thankfully, to date, have been foiled by the FBI & local law enforcement). Now if you happen to think this result has been an effective use of our resources, then by all means let's keep on the current path.

Obviously I disagree, and I have yet to see a constructive argument, with concrete details, that convinces me this is the best use of our resources.

These plans are much easier to undertake when you have plenty of time, money, and security to do them. They have yet to make a successful attack since 9/11, in part because they have no real safe area to plan from, and no easy pipeline to get them men and materials into this country. Yes, defense here at home is critical and the FBI, etc have done a great job, but that job is made easier because we've gone after their safe areas. ANY war on terror has got to involve overseas operations.

Yes, that might be possible with just letting special operations run around over there, but they need safe bases to operate from IN THE AREA, not a half continent away (Germany, maybe Turkey if we're lucky?).

Needless to say I don't agree with your rationale, Greg, but that's a much more thoughtful answer than you've given previously, and I appreciate it. I really didn't want to believe you were one of the crowd that believes that our being over there in some way guarantees that the terrorists won't be able to attack us.

So, we both agree that successful counter-terrorism activities involve activities abroad. I think it's hard to deny that. The question, then, is what kind of activities represent the best and most effective use of our resources when talking about the goal of denying Al Qaeda the ability to operate freely.

I understand you & I & Dutch disagree on this, but I'm not going to bother re-hashing this at the moment because I feel I've talked through this enough with the two of you over the past few years. Maybe another day when I have more time or more wherewithal.

i'd argue that we should be doing less bombing and more community-building. supplant the madrasas as the sources of education for the majority of the population and you cut off the supply of in-country jihadis. combine this with a better patrolled border in those areas where they like to cross (USA can do this via UAV's easier than anybody else used to try to do on foot) and you put the country on the right path.

I agree with you - except for the necessity of including your last sentence. That's just unnecessary political-baiting.

I think Dutch's long article after mine is giving me credit for some misconceptions I don't believe I have made as an opponent to the wars, so lets go point by point:


Saddam Hussein by that point was a non-factor, if we really wanted to do some damage we should have applied some more muscle to the embargo and his own people probably would have killed him. I'm not opposing the war because I'm a bleeding heart liberal, I'm opposing the war because I'm a die hard ruthlessly efficient bastard and love taking low effort high damage strategies against our enemies. The correct answer was 'starve em out' and increase intelligence gathering and stop politicking.

We did need to attack Afghanistan, I think I probably even made noise about it back before during and after it was done. However, my point from the very start was that they need a strong concentrated attack on the terror network, and not a ground force invasion similar to the early 90's war with Iraq. Instead of out-maneuvering a large standing force we had to deal with rough terrain and guerilla style tactics, and the best strategy for that is concentrated force and a clean sweep of everything in your attack. Instead we flitted about Afghanistan trying to secure various cities we didn't need to hold!

Start the attack basically as a giant raid on the terror camps with an eye towards a quick strike and execution of the Taliban government if they even posture that they would rally on the side of Al Qaeda. Treat it like a massive siege, kill anything that moves towards you, and then tighten the perimeter (while of course bombing the hell out of the main targets from the very start, but having it encircled first is key to kill fleeing enemies).

Each scumbag that escaped that terror camp you can basically consider worth 5 future Afghan terrorists. They are the motivators and suppliers that recruit the next wave of troops, you want to destroy them entirely and make any rebellion start from pitchforks.

Then we should have backed out of the country and give those pitchforks no real reason to even get started. Instead of an occupying force to blame for their shitty lives, they would be back to blaming their local warlords or bad economy. The only people we would have really pissed off would all be dead or captured.



I certainly never used that line of thought. I've always argued its a shithole not worth getting involved in, that we stirred up the shit don't mean much more. What they really hate is their shitty lives and mostly they have themselves (or their 'kings') to blame. They try to channel it into rage against us, but that is because we are an easy target that they don't actually have to really commit to anything because we are so far away no one expects them to do anything about it. Its basically the Big Brother styled 'pretend everything bad is to do with a battle from some far away boogie man while the real purpose is continued oppression of your own people'.

If we wanted to do drastic measures, forbid all immigration from any country we consider a source of terrorists. Certainly forbid all temporary visitation. Eject anyone in the country that doesn't pass a security check and exile em back there. That sort of action would have stopped 9/11 and certainly is less offensive than a massive war.

In my opinion we don't need the backside of the invasions, they were based more on war profiteering than solid strategy or ethics. We didn't need Iraq at all, it was suitably contained, and Afghanistan had some residents that were trying to project out towards us, so yes go in and lay a smack down, but don't reward them and build up their country afterwards. Instead, let them know they mess with the US instead of living shitty lives, they will be simply killed.


I'd add to that equation the most important variable... where would the US itself be. As for my diagnosis (which I've already put out in part, but this now assumes no Afghan invasion ever occurring):

Iraq: Most likely a wretched starving mess, most likely Saddam would be dead or dealing with small insurrections from his own dissatisfied populace. They'd still be selling off most of their oil at discounts like before the war. They still have no WMD program worth mentioning. Saddam would still be fighting the rise of terror groups in his own country because they are a bigger threat to his power, and he would not be able to redirect them effectively against his enemies (which at this point are more internal than external anyway as it is in most declining third world dictatorships).

Afghanistan: Taliban would still be in charge (this might happen anyway at the current rate....) Terror camp would still exist, but presumably infiltrated or at least under so much spysat coverage that anyone coming out of the area wouldn't be let within a 1000 miles of the US. In my opinion it would still be a serious threat to middle east stability, and we'd need to be very strict on our domestic security. I don't think there would be another 9/11 but Middle East terrorism would be on the rise and we'd get more agitation from local powers to intervene. Biggest threat would be more Taliban style fundamental religious governments trying to rise up in nearby countries.

United States: I'm assuming an emphasis was put on internal security rather than just doing same old same old (which for the most part I've felt we have, we talk a lot but change little other than annoy people). I would hope we'd take off the kid gloves and just be downright rude to people, forbid 'least favored nations' from interacting with the US on our soil.

We would have a lot of money not lost down the war drain, but to be honest most of it would have been wiped out in the financial crimes of the past couple years anyway. Our army would not be deployed to such a massive extent... our diplomatic efforts would probably get more respect... and we would probably not have terrorism effect our lives all so much as it has. The war fever I think depended on drumming up fear, and the collective depression engineered by ourselves is perhaps of greater magnitude than that caused by the attack itself.

So overall, the US would be just fine, like it always has been.



Ya, I don't think anyone should say that Iraq or Afghanistan were in some better state before the war. Afghanistan was arguably stable, but both were needing to use local military intimidation to keep their people in line. And a rebellion probably wasn't likely, but thats just like the US where despite the obvious idiocy of our leaders the average man is too lazy to even change their voting patterns, yet alone clamor for change.

I don't think we are supporting functional democracies, already we have one rigged election under our belts and no real response to it from us. And there are lots of third world countries, some of which more likely to cooperate with us, that we are basically ignoring that they are being oppressed. We are there becase someone wants to fight, I'd argue it is more overblown egos than a good reason to as well.

As for the opportunity, I don't see why its our duty to provide a chance at freedom for people who a large percentage just turn around and shoot at us. If they had to fight for it entirely themselves, they might actually appreciate it. Foreign sponsored rebellions, even against evil regimes, have a very spotty record of lasting long. Seems spilling your own blood for freedom is a pretty important element for getting a functional government based on it. Spilling some foreigners blood who you were taught your whole life is an infidel??? not so important.

And as for progress, I still see it fragmenting apart. Even in the ideal scenario, two happy dapper countries form, we will never recoup our costs, and we might have them dependent on our aid for decades which just means you shove enough money down a hole you can build up a nice hole. So we'll have two pet democracies and the rest of the world still looking like crap.

If it was more a 'Marshall Plan' for the Middle East, well maybe you could get me on that side eventually. But I'm convinced we need a rebuilding process right here actually and would get a far bigger bang for the buck.

Strictly FWIW (and since someone asked me about this sort of thing earlier in the thread), the grunt in the field that we're close to who just came home would have an almost entirely opposite take on that based on the conversations I've had with him while he was in country.

We'll surely get deeper into all of that when we finally get to sit down next week and I'll update further, but to this point he's had at best only marginally positive things to say about the local population in general. Their unit belief, again FWIW since being shot at on a regular basis could tend to color anyone's judgment, is that over 50% of local troops they're training & working beside are fully hostile & waiting for either orders or opportunity to act on that hostility. The population has not been described any kinder & the thing I gather our troops would most like to see in the field is a much more aggressive offensive positioning.

Again, not so much at you particularly, it just reminded me someone had asked about his takes on things & this seemed like a relevant place to add the preliminary version of that.

Jon - do you mean the local troops are ready to be hostile to the Americans, or are hostile towards the local populace? (Sorry, that question sounds stupider now that I write it out, but I'll leave it.)

And then the follow-up question is whether he thinks the locals are disposed against the Americans primarily because a) they just want the Americans out or b) because they're receiving support/propaganda/are in fear of the Taliban/Al Qaeda?

I ask because there are some similarities to my brother's experience in Ramadi. He was there pre-surge when the local population was basically either in the pay of, or terrorized into submission by, foreign insurgents under the umbrella of Al Qaeda. My brother's unit (generally older national guard folks) managed to "flip" a number of prominent locals, and make some headway, and eventually this tactic was used in the surge (and had success, combined with the "Anbar Awakening", of course).

I'd love to be there in person to hear what he has to say, so I'm looking forward to your follow-ups. Please tell him we wish him the best, and hope for his safety (I would say "pray", but I don't pray).

I think I get what you're asking. My impression based on his comments to date is that it's deeper than anti-US. Whether that's one faction toward all the others or multiple factions against any that isn't their own I can't say we've gotten that deep.


I haven't gotten any sense of a frightened component among those elements we've talked about. We talked about it more during the early stages of his deployment but at that time it was much more along the lines of having as many bad guys inside the wire as there were outside the wire. Real "watch your back" kind of stuff.

That makes sense. Prior to the Taliban, and prior to the Soviets, the de facto power structure in what's termed "Afghanistan" these days were essentially warlords operating in a basically feudal structure, sometimes linked to specific sectarian/ethnic/cultural groups. From what I've read, these distinctions still exist quite clearly and local warlords tend to own their regional power structure much more than the Karzai government does.

Basically, if all coalition troops were to disappear tomorrow, local power structures would mobilize to protect their pieces of turf (in many cases they're mobilized already, and are just waiting). In some cases warlords would form alliances for mutual benefit/protection, and in some cases warlords would ally with the Taliban for the same reason (or to avoid being crushed by the Taliban in certain specific areas where the Taliban is especially strong).


Frightened in the sense (among the local populace) that should the Americans leave the Taliban (or some other oppressive power) will be able to swiftly move in an make everyone's life a living hell once again.


That really sucks. I mean, my brother's base got mortared very frequently, resulting in a lot of deaths, but at least they didn't have to worry about getting shot in the back while on base (or, worse, having the coordinates of base structures relayed to those shooting the mortars).

What I gathered was that this wouldn't bother a lot of the locals he's been dealing with much at all. There are exceptions (or they hope there are) but up to the point we've talked about it at least there haven't been many warm fuzzy moments with (potentially) downtrodden locals, mostly just the thinly veiled hatred kind.


Yeah, the incident right before he left was more than a little disturbing to say the least. No way I'm believing that was a lucky shot. Seems more likely that he's alive today only because they failed to coordinate the timing of their attack on the base.

My brother related how some particularly disgruntled soldiers would joke darkly about how easy it would be to paint the GPS coordinates to the officers' mess on the side of their HMMV when they went out on patrol, in order to achieve a particular end....

So yeah... it's absolutely terrifying to be a soldier, I think.

I just started reading Jon Krakauer's book on Pat Tillman and I came across something I've never seen before. According to Zbigniew Brezhinski, the U.S. started funding the mujaheedin months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a purposeful effort to goad the Soviets into an invasion.

Has anyone else ever seen that?

Pretty depressing conversation about that if you want to know the truth.

His view of the locals is incredibly bleak, even as he speaks at length about the few really good ones he's met. I got a sense that those are so few & far between in his experience that the top notch ones not only stand out but really inspire both admiration & genuine fondness. But even in that anything positive gets crushed pretty swiftly.

Case in point, an overtly corrupt local police chief was fired largely due to the persistent efforts/complaints/reports from his unit. The response? One of their best interpreters, a guy who had hosted my friend in his home for a family meal & he and the rest of the unit had really grown fond of, was kidnapped. A couple of days later his head was tossed into the family yard for his children to find. The rest of the remains were never recovered, but the former police chief has made a point of wandering by smirking.

Meanwhile, his stories of clusterfuckness could fill several nights of conversation. Among the better ones is the small problem that's come up with their most recent batch of locals hired as interpreters. One small problem: over half of them didn't speak English & they actually had to assign interpreters for their interpreters.

In short, after months in country, his take is very much that there are so few people worth even attempting to "save" that the only thing worth doing there at this point is to level the country completely & leave nothing in one piece or alive. Anything else he dismisses as nothing more than "a joke".

You asked, that's the answer. Pretty fucking dismal take on it to be honest.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Just an update on my guy over there, since this was the last thread where I mentioned him.

He managed to get word to his wife this week (after more than a week incommunicado) that he's basically off-line & out of touch for the rest of his tour. His unit has been moved from their FOB and will be living in Afghani homes in the Paktika province for the duration.

After some digging around online & going through some outdated maps to find the specific place name he used, it appears that he's been dropped into a pretty deep pile of shit and would likely be facing elements of the Haqqani network, a group with close ties to the Taliban that is particularly adept at training insurgents and almost specializes in using foreign suicide bombers. It's now led by the son of one of the most senior military leaders of the Mujahadein (sp?) that were so effective against the Russians back in the day. His father was notable for his ability to forge ties & obtain financial support from outside sources during that conflict, including a reported (but never confirmed) visit with Reagan at the White House.

Bottom line is that it appears the toughest & most dangerous part of Dan's tour is going to be the last 7 weeks, not too many places I'd want him not to be more than this one.

Terrible news. Seven weeks will not pass fast enough. I'll keep him in my thoughts.

I hope your friend (and all of our other troops) make it through safely. Scary stuff.

Thanks guys, all prayers/positive thoughts/best wishes/good vibes/et al are sincerely appreciated.

Gotta tell you, the more I found about where they sent him, the more concerned I became. Up until now looks like a cakewalk in the park compared to where he's suddenly gone. And the unexpected nature of it adds to my concern, as this seemed to be a really out of the blue thing.

Further adding to my concern is that the younger Haqqani claims his father was offered the PM's job by Karzai but turned it down in order to continue the jihad. Given his outlining of a planned spring offensive using locals to bolster their existing forces, it seems kind of obvious why we've just imbedded troops into the homes. I get visions of Tet at this point.

Specific to Iraq ...

Stabilized is relative peace in the country and relative political progress. I contend that all signs point to this progress.

The job is to exit Iraq and leave it where it can peacefully progress through its own version of democracy. I contend that all signs point to this progress.

Care to offer your definition of both so we can level set for future discussions?

Who really knows but trying to be optimistic. Lets hope the new strategy works.

Offensive aims to turn page in Afghan war - Afghanistan- msnbc.com
Eh, but I remember someone telling me that "hope is not a management strategy".

Actually, I'm going to wait a couple of months and then respond. :D


Relative to what? It's clear that the regular suicide bombings and other violence is having a marked impact on the country's ability to move forward in either the economic or political spheres.

Which leads us to the real cognitive disconnect here:


The problem is "peacefully progress". I think the evidence shows that it's just as likely that Iraq peacefully progresses to its own form of Democracy as it is that Iraq suffers another series of violent upheavals out of which a theocratic state much like Iran forms.

Let's see if a) they can get elections done and b) if it makes any difference for them. At this point we're going to leave anyway, with just enough troops left "over the horizon" to make sure they don't screw us on oil contracts.

Again, the problem is this word "stabilized". I'm sure Iraqis think the country is "more stable" than 2 years ago. But "stabilized"? No.

I don't see where Edward is arguing that "stabilized as compared to 2 years ago" equates to "Iraq is as stabilized as Belgium" (for example).

If you are suggesting that the use of the word "stabilized" is an end state, then Edward is clearly not suggesting the effort is finished.

In any event, you cannot convert a dictatorship into a democracy (especially when it is overrun with Al Qaeda types) overnight. So you have to have measurables. I think it's fair to compare Iraq today vs 2 years ago and determine progression or regression. Just like it was fair to compare Iraq in 2005 to just after the overthrow of Saddam in 2003 and say "things are getting worse".

Until we see a peaceful transition of government power we don't know where we stand in Iraq. Things look better, especially after the courts reinstated the Sunni candidates, but I doubt it would really surprise anyone to see it all blow up again as soon as our troops come home.

I, for one, would be surprised to "see it all blow up again (as in pre-surge)".

Let me state clearly, there is obviously going to be political warfare, which will lead to some bursts of shootouts/bombings/tension/recriminations/threats et al.

However, it is IMHO, that we have passed the stage of (1) AQ (2) left-over Sadam's "dead-enders" and (3) Al-Sadr type sectarian warefare.

Iraq is well on its way to some relative peaceful, version of "non-Saddism" (wanted to use Democracy but didn't want to go so far in this context).

I'll give you one and two, but I don't know about three. If the Sunni candidates are allowed to participate in the elections there's a much better chance that you're right, but if the Sunnis ar pushed aside in favor of a more pure Shia government all bets are off.

I'm veering into semantics here, but put simply the word "stabilized" does not mean the same thing as "progressing". Edward used the word "stabilized" and then went on to describe the situation as in a state of progression.

This may seem petty, but much of the argumentation over Iraq these past years has been the use of words that indicate one thing, when the speaker "means" something else ("Mission Accomplished" being the most blatant example, of course), so I think I'm within my rights to require a definition of usage at this point.

Iraq is progressing. It has not, in my mind, stabilized. It is more stable than 2 years ago.

As JPhillips said, let's see if they can do an actual peaceful transition of power anytime soon. In the meantime it's still a violent country with multiple elements taking direct violent action to compromise the efforts to set up a sustainable government.

My money is still on a breakaway Kurdish republic and an Iranian theocratic client state when the dust all settles.

Ah, is there where the misunderstanding is? I reread my initial posting and see that I did not qualify it properly.

However, I do believe in my later posts that I was clear my argument. As Dutch stated, in no way did I mean it was all warm and fuzzy there but significant progress has been made in "stabilizing" especially when compared to pre-surge.

Yep. I think we've got it figured out now. Thanks for clarifying.

Looks like the leader of the Pakistani Taliban may have died today. That's a good turn of events in this possible change of momentum.

Apparently confirmed by the group about an hour ago.
Pakistan Taliban Confirms Leader Killed By U.S. Drone Attack

Some analysis of the situation from when the rumors first surfaced indicated that the impact on them would be relatively minimal (compared to the death of their previous leader six months or so ago) as they already had an assistant waiting in the wings to take over.

Man, no mention by anyone that the Taliban Commander was captured last week? This is a huge deal, especially since the White House was able to shut down the media report of it for a few days. The CIA likely got a TON of intelligence in the few days between his capture and the report of his capture. I have little doubt that we'll see a lot of big moves in the coming days as the enemy moves and tries to recover.

AT WAR: Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Taliban Commander, Captured

I'm cautiously optimistic, but since I doubt the Taliban has a centralized command-and-control system, this might not be the killer blow for which some people are hoping.

The bigger news is that apparently this was done on the initiative of Pakistani intelligence. If that's true, then it means Pakistan is ready to act aggressively in tandem with our forces, which is a very significant development.

Perhaps I'm misreading your statement here. The fact that they don't have a centralized system is exactly why the 3-4 days of no news reports was so critical. The CIA and Pakistan were likely able to put together a gold mine of connections over that period where the Taliban and Al Queda were unaware that he was captured. Many remote command centers will have to relocate as a result of this. Anytime you have your enemy on the move, it's much easier to track them down.