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

[Edward64]

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

Obama is preparing to announce the new strategy to the public on Tuesday, including the addition of thousands more American forces, a clarification of the mission and a path toward disengagement. It will likely be one of the toughest sales jobs of his presidency

At West Point, Obama was expected to announce an increase of up to 35,000 more U.S. forces to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize a weak Afghan government. The escalation, which would take place over the next year, would put more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion.

Obama is also expected to outline an exit strategy for the war.

[RainMaker]

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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?

[JPhillips]

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

[JPhillips]

Fred Kaplan sums up where I'm at:

So here's what it comes down to: This option might be a good idea if it worked, but the chances of its working are slim (though not zero); all the other options seem to be bad ideas, but they might cost less money and get fewer American soldiers killed (though not necessarily).

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They can wait us out anyway, it's their country.

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

When did the utopian dream of building nations from sand become conservative ideology?

"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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

it's all smoke and mirrors.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[path12]

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

Unlike the fifteen previous ones.

[stevew]

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

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.

[CU Tiger]

Make it a desert call it peace

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

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.

Sorry to hear.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by path12

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

Unlike the fifteen previous ones.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

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.

[Edward64]

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

Gordon Brown has confirmed he will send 500 more troops to Afghanistan, taking the total UK deployment to over 10,000.

He told MPs all conditions had now been met to send the extra personnel and that eight other countries had also offered additional troops.

The UK force level will reach 9,500 but special forces takes this to 10,000.

Mr Brown and Barack Obama have held a video conference to discuss the issue a day before the US president's likely announcement of 35,000 extra US troops.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has confirmed at least 5,000 additional Nato troops will be sent to the country.

He told the BBC the eight countries to pledge extra forces include Turkey, Solvakia, Georgia and Portugal, but he believed others would follow.

Mr Brown told the Commons the three conditions needed to commit UK troops had been met, namely enough equipment, sufficient help from other nations and more local training for local forces.

A political surge would follow the military surge, he added, with an enlarged and reformed Afghan police force and more effective and accountable local administration.

He said the coalition was seeking a "major" expansion of the Afghan army from 90,000 to 134,000, with the aim that local forces would eventually assume sole responsibility.

He also said the terrorist threat from al-Qaeda would be addressed at its source - along the Afghan/Pakistan border areas.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

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.

[RainMaker]

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.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

let's get the job done.

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

Seems counter intuitive to me, would think we should put troops all around the mountainous areas and hunt them down ...

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

Iraq has stabilized and the democracy that evolves there will be interesting.

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)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As of now, Iraq has come a long way in a little under 2 years when the surge started.

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).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[SportsDino]

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'.

[molson]

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.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

+1

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[SportsDino]

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).

[lungs]

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

By what measures?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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

Zakaria: My own view, which is not particularly popular, is that we should stop trashing Hamid Karzai. Look, we have no good option. We need a Pashtun leader in Afghanistan. It's 60 percent of the population, 100 percent of the insurgency. Is he the best Pashtun leader we could have? He's the one we have now. It would be great if we could get Karzai to improve governance, [but] I'm not sure it's worth expending large amounts of American political capital attacking corruption, at this point, in Afghanistan. It's definitely a huge problem, it's part of the cancer that's eating away at the country.

At this point we need security, stability, some form of economic development. This is one of the worst situations in the world. If this is not a place that you have to have priorities -- have triage -- I don't know what is. Achieving basic political order is more important right now than eliminating corruption.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

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).

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

That's not what I asked. You said:

Seems counter intuitive to me, would think we should put troops all around the mountainous areas and hunt them down ...

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 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.

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

Iraq has stabilized and the democracy that evolves there will be interesting.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Achieving basic political order is more important right now than eliminating corruption.

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.

[SportsDino]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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?

[flere-imsaho]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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'.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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).

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

To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The national, state, and local numbers we provide are based on the total approved amounts through the end of Fiscal Year 2009

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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).