It's looking that way. We should build our intelligence network and then use special ops to snuff out Al Q types as they pop up on radar.

Following Mike Yon's blog, they don't have to wait. Taliban are everywhere and pop up everytime troops leave their compounds.

I hate to admit it, but unlike Iraq this does sound more like Vietnam redux.

Taliban ain't Al Q. They oppress their own people and let Al Q operate but they are not one entity. As far as I know anyway...

That's true, but finding and hitting Al Q is tough, when you're fighting Taliban full time. We can't be there and not fight Taliban.

Yeah, but for how long? and then what?

I would say that the operation from an SF stand point should be open ended, without an end point. But the process of sending larger and larger numbers of troops is futile IMHO, unless we go into Pakistan in a large scale, which I doubt that we could do for numerous reasons.

Timely and speaks to the discussion.

News Analysis
Crux of Afghan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror?

continues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/wo...terror.html?hp

Do we have a goal in Afghanistan? Is it just to keep killing Al Q there so they won't hit us here? Is it to eliminate the Taliban? Is it to set up a stable government so we can get out? What is our goal? Do we even have one?

Interesting questions, glatt. Perhaps the administration could explain.

The goal remains defined by 11 September. bin Laden and his allies. A goal that was subverted back in 2002 when our military leaders had zero knowledge of basic military concepts.

Same people who also do no planning for the peace in Desert Storm (gave Schwarzkopf no conditions for Saddam's surrender), and who abandoned the 3rd ID with no after action orders when Baghdad fell. Same people who also surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban due to a complete lack of any military knowledge.

The objective remains the same question that so many here refused to ask because of political rhetoric. "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Unfortunately wackos said, "America does not do nation building." As a result we must refight the entire Afghanistan war from scratch - this time without local popular support. Expected when political agendas replace and ignore logical thought and the lessons from history.

Number one objective - bin Ladan and his allies. But now the country has good reason to believe all Americans are dumb and two faced as George Jr. It makes the bottom line objective that much more difficult and complex.

I am not sure that they completely understand the issue.

Well they did inherit an incomprehensible fuck-up of magnificent proportions. I'm not entirely sure the administration who took you (us) into Afghanistan knew what their actual war aims were.

Afghanistan was the right move at that time. Period. It was an unconventional fight, one that we prosecuted exceptionally well. Since then, to oversimplify, too many commanders are using what is normally thought of as basic military concepts, and have no real concept of how to prosecute an unconventional fight. Our commanders do basic military concepts exceptionally well TW. We mass and project the proper military power and BLUF, break things and kill people. Non basic military concepts are not well accepted and practiced on the scale that we now need it to be. I think this is a major consideration in why Afghanistan has developed the way that it has.

Kill Bin Laden? Or how bout let's not make him a martyr, how about develop the networks of influence that deny him the human terrain that he influences and recruits from.

I'm not saying that is our strategy right now, I'm just throwing that out as an idea of the unconventional, non-basic type of war that we find ourselves.

Make no mistake, we are at war. Wether we are in Afghanistan or Iraq, or not. Wether we choose to see it or not. wether we choose to fight or not. War was declared in 2001, well, even before that. As for me, I'd rather fight then lay my head down on the chopping block. I disagree with the people in my country and elsewhere who are pacifists and think that "everything" is warmongering.

I can see that there was true justification for going into Afghanistan. But the aims of the administration at the time flounder, for me, on the fact that they chose to also to invade Iraq. Iraq hadn't declared war on America, had no connection whatsoever with the 9/11 attacks, had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat to America, had no Al Quaeda connections.

I am not a 'pacifist'. I don't believe 'everything' is warmongering. I lost all trust in the war-aims in Afghanistan when Iraq was dragged into the fray. The level of dishonesty and the rush to military action there cast huge doubt in my mind as to what the administration was hoping to achieve in Afghanistan.


I think you're absolutely right about the need for a different kind of war. The 'non-basic military concepts' you mentioned. And this is another problem I have with the situation in Afghanistan. Traditional war styles have historically failed in Afghanistan. I do not believe either the American administration, or their allies (my own government included) were clear enough in what they wanted from the action, and how to achieve that action. That's not to say that the soldiers didn;t do a good job. But I think the aims could have been more clearly defined: what was the projected end of the operation? How was that to be achieved? Part one may have been planned and executed well (I'll take your word for that, you're the expert, I am not). But what was the overall aim? Was it to end the threat of Al-Quaeda? To crush the Taleban? To bring democracy? To find and kill Bin Laden? All of the above? Each of those aims would require a different approach. Some are/were served by the approach taken. Others were not. And none of them, I believe, were served or furthered by engaging in a war on multiple fronts unnecessarily.

None of this is an attack on the military. It is a criticism of the political war-aims, not the military war-aims.

Different subject altogether.



Fair enough.

DanaC's post explains why the strategic objective is now so difficult, and now involves so many peripheral issues - including the integrity of NATO. The objective has not changed. But complications attached to that objective are now massive, confusing, and may not be achievable.

If not achieved, then we let bin Laden and his peers win – directly traceable to wacko extremism that made decisions based in a political agenda rather than in reality and the lessons from history.

The allies conquered WWII Germany. The movie Patton even demonstrates the principles violated in Afghanistan. Patton said he only had six months to establish roads, electricity, phones, and sewers. If not, then the allies lose Germany. It was not fiction. Even after the spectacular military victory, the politicians let America then be defeated by bin Laden's allies. And so we must now refight the entire war all over again - this time with major complications.

One must decide whether to concede victory to bin Laden or now spend more than we did in Iraq to achieve the strategic objective. Due to details listed by DanaC, it could easily become that bad. DanaC's post defines what we must correct - why we must sacrifice thousands more American lives - due to gross mismanagement at the highest levels of the American government.

More complications created by the fiasco created in 2002 in Afghanistan. Appreciate what happens when the bills come due. From the NY Times of 9 Sept 2009: Next year, the US will have no transport to ISS except using Russian rockets and Soyuz capsules. Nothing until 2017 when Orion is ready? This is the planning by the same George Jr administration that also created a second war in Afghanistan - that will cost massively more. No money left for his Man to Mars boondoggle. No money for even something to replace the Shuttles. Another surrender of American technology leadership due to bad management. No money because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". More complications - even the manned space program - because of details listed by DanaC.

More complications that adversely affect whether we can even achieve the strategic objective in Afghanistan.

What is the objective again? You missed that detail.

Were we at war with a country then or a group of nomadic idealists? I question the relevance of this comparison. (I know I'm gonna regret asking this of tw) Please elaborate on how the two situations compare. How many men did Patton have under his command? How many do we have now in Afganistan? What were the situations? Offhand it seems like two completely different scenarios and to compare them is not only impossible, but something only an extremist would do.

Balls in your court Mr. President.

Notice he said, no troops, no victory. He hasn't said (that I've heard, true, and I haven't been listening ver closely) the other way around: more troops = victory. Even with the troops, we've got a lot of work to do.

Link

Hmm. I'm really not sure what to make of this. Is Obama too busy with the Healthcare situation to deal with this or is this all simply time for reflection and discussion.

The "aides" are probably worrying about the political risk, but Mike Yon says Gates has his head on straight, and understands what must be done over there.

Yeh - a CYA in real time.

Obama's delay is probably because of the political paralysis in Afghanistan.
Maybe the run-off election will produce a president who is legitimate, supported, competent, honest, and sane, but this raises the further question, if pigs can fly, would that make them halal?

If the coalition troops beat up the Taliban, drive them out, and take control of a particular area, then what? If they leave, the Taliban moves back in, and because there is no Afghanistan police/army strong enough to take over control, we're stuck with it. Controlling the whole country would take hundreds of thousands of troops, either ours or theirs.

So the obvious solution is to create an Afghan army/police, strong enough to take control of the territory we win. But building such a force, without a strong/respected central government (which Afghanistan has NEVER had), from a group that's illiterate and loyal to hundreds of different tribal chiefs, is fucking near impossible.

Can you say, rock and a hard place?:(

A great story of escape from the Taliban.

A Rope and a Prayer

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/wo...ewanted=1&_r=1

This is very disturbing to me. We can't even supply our troops with new boots? :mad:

Where did that picture come from, Bruce? This is just so wrong.

Wow, great site, Bruce. From the same source:

This is beyond women's rights IMO. Its just basic human rights. No one should be treated like a slave. :mad:

Sound good, but it's basically unenforceable in Afghanistan, and a lot of other countries, without a culture change.

The talleban are making a move.

In my view, this upcoming run-off election is the last roll of the dice for Afghanistan to get a government with perceived legitimacy. Pretty unlikely at best, especially after the last shambles.

To try to improve the election, many international observers and administrators are being brought in.

So the talleban are directly attacking them. They just raided a UN-used housing compound, killing at least eight. If they can drive out the foreign observers, there is no way the election will be perceived as fair. The resulting government will lack perceived legitimacy, and will have minimal domestic or international support. The foreign forces may well wash their hands of the whole mess and leave. The resulting government will either collpase or lapse into loose control over tribal sub-governments; either way, the talleban get their safe-havens back, this campaign in the War-on-Terror will have failed.

The enemy may be whacko religious-extremist nut-jobs, but they are clever whacko religious-extremist nutjobs.

Well it speaks volumes for how they operate. They are going after soft targets rather than risk being caught or killed.

That might mean ................ raising taxes!! Oh NOOOOOOooooo!:eek:

Naw, I vote we just take it out of one of the many socialist welfare programs.

They've been going after soft targets for some time now, haven't they? They want attention & killing innocents while blaming others has been the best way to get the ignorant to support them... whats new here?

But then I'll have to
What to do? What to do????

Yeah, we don't want our soldiers caught, um, dead, in bad boots. :eyebrow:

Yea who needs boots anyway right. Maybe the Demoncrats will just make them go barefoot to pay for the new healthcare plan.

You're so full of bullshit I wonder how you walk around.

I know, let's see if we can get them some Jesus Sandals!

It would work over there in that damn desert...they could play "Midnight at the Oasis" in the background...kind of like a theme party.

HA. :)

JESUS sandals??? Try Mohammed sandals, you culturally insensitive neo-imperialist running dog something something.

Seriously for a moment ... "soft targets to avoid being captured or killed"... hmmm, most suicide attacks are fatal, you know. Most of these whackos do not fear death; death in battle in the service of Islam (or their messed up interpretation of it, at least) is automatic entry to paradise. Victory or paradise!

Meanwhile the secular forces all discretely want to survive so they can enjoy the victory. Which force is going to fight most doggedly, and win?

Eh. Good points.

Faulty reasoning. Because they feel righteous and willing to die, the majority throw themselves into battle without thinking about it. We've seen clips of these clowns in Iraq, run out and stand in the middle of the street firing their AK wildly, until a .50 blows them right out of their Nikes.
Afghan Taliban are a little smarter, but it's the leaders. That's why taking the leaders out, is effective against them, it takes them awhile to reorganize.

if somebody invades into your house, any reaction you use against the invader is justifiable...you are the good guy.
the invader would be the bad guy, no matter what excuse he uses to justify his invasion.
the invader's own little pink house in this case is crumblin' down, which is probably the reason why he invaded in the first place.

True. There is a wide range from cowardice, through selfishness, apathy, reluctance, discipline, bravery, recklessness, stupidity, and suicidal tendencies. Skillful discipline and strategic courage are of course trumps, but within Afghanistan (and Pakistan) it is selfish reluctance Vs reckless stupidity. Sounds like about an even-money bet to me.

IMHO no form of central government in Afganistan will ever unite the numerous factions of warlords, nor would it have enough centralized power to prevent various warlords and their ethnic groups from having relationship across the artificial boundries drawn on a map. The best we can hope for is some form of support to allow us to attack the elements which are detrimental to our collective interests where ever they may hide. I suspect even a large scale ramp up of troops would only have a temporizing effect and without long term commitment to bring what is basically a feudal country into the 21st Century we will eventually have to withdraw. As in Iraq the American people can't stomach long term commitments of troops.

So thats where our troops get their shoes!

Good Old Shoe

What I worry about is, we send in what ever we need to take control of the country, and then what? There's nobody to hand it off to. Maybe it's better to loudly announce, "WE WON", and go home now. :confused:

No worries Bruce. Obama most likely won't send what the general believes is needed.

Agreed. A Wilsonian democracy/Marshall aid program is simply not applicable here without a generation-long investment, if at all; and then, probably not worth the price; and even then, the folks back home don't want to go and bleed overseas for 50 years.


I can't see this working.

So we allow some tribal/political dude to take over, withdraw all "boots-on-the-ground" type troops (who may actually be doing useful nation-building work, building and guarding schools, clinics, utilities, etc) and just have a strike force that roams about striking perceived enemies.

Problems:
(1) we can't even find the enemies now, it would be harder under this plan.
(2) we will still need bases to operate from, and supply lines to support those bases. Where are these going to be? how are they not going to be vulnerable?
(3) doing the bombing without the rebuilding would just make us more resented and hated than already. Watch the enemy's recruitment soar.
(4) whichever central government allows foreigners to use their country as a shooting range will be despised by their own people and fairly quickly overthrown, leading to an end to any co-operation with the west.
(5) if the strikes against the enemy do have an impact, they can just move over the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan. Thus we would be contributing to the destabilisation of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Don't ask me what we should do though, I can't think of anything that looks like it will work. Perhaps, if we had focused all effort on Afghanistan from 2002 to about 2005 or 06, we might have got it to a stage where we could do a dignified exit, but that opportunity is gone, if it ever existed.

The only contingency plan I would advocate is making sure there is a nice big helipad on the embassy roof.

George Jr did that twice. First in Afghanistan. Then again in Mission Accomplished. He did exactly what violated every fundamental principle of war. Learn from history. Both that written 2500 years ago and repeated by George Jr. Those using political rhetoric for knowledge are doomed to relearn history the hard way.

What is the controversy concerning Afghanistan? Starts with the strategic objective. Paraphrased in a question that most wacko Americans routinely avoided – because it exposed their political agenda. When do we go after bin Laden?

The controversy involves how wide a war must be fought to accomplish the strategic objective. That is the question current being analyzed and will be answered in Washington. How many more troops? A minor part of the larger question. Those who actually read the news know of the larger question. Those who love to be told how to think (Fox News viewers) only saw a request for more troops.

Also stupid was George Jr’s desire to impose democracy. That has created instability and even created some worldwide distrust of America. Afghans must earn their own democracy. That means a civil war may be necessary. It could have been averted had American leadership not all but invited the Taliban to return.

How to know that Afghanistan was in trouble because George Jr was that dumb and Cheny was that wacko? “Americans don’t do nation building.” Only those who hate the American soldier would have said or believed that. That is why the Afghanistan war must be refought completely from scratch.

A democratic Afghanistan may or may not be in American interests. Why? Never forget the fundamental strategic objective that wacko extremist Americans intentionally forgot. When do we go after bin Laden?

That question defines America's #1 objective in Afghanistan. Only denied by wackos and the uneducated. We must get bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban - listed in order of significance. No honest person can disagree with that. That is the real question being discussed in Washington. How do we accomplish the strategic objective. That was the underlying point in a question asked in the Cellar for what – seven years? “When do we go after bin Laden?”

Stop paying so much attention to a secondary problem. The strategic objective has been that obvious for almost a decade - still has not changed. We must get bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban - listed in order of significance.

Anything else such as the Afghan government is secondary. How that would be accomplished is found in details that cannot be discussed here because almost nobody knows what those details are. But we always knew one thing. It was repeatedly asked here. When many start grasping it, then maybe this question will get a useful answer. "When do we go after bin Laden?"

They're not doing any of those things. There are some humanitarian projects going on, mostly by non-combatant coalition allies and financed by Japan, but they're few and far between.
Are you kidding me? Virtually every patrol, from every base, gets attacked by the Taliban. Osama and Al Qaeda, are tough to find because they ain't there... most of the time, anyway. Bombing is very limited, it's nothing like Iraq. Afghanistan is wide open spaces with houses (compounds) in small clusters around water. Those clusters wouldn't even qualify as a town, barely a village. There are no streets, just a few dirt tracks that can only be navigated reliably with horses or mules. I doubt the people will do anything but ignore the "central" government. Most of the citizens don't even have a road that leads to Kabul, without following several mountain trails to find a road. They'll just cooperate with whoever's in power in their local, at the moment, just as they've done for thousands of years. A "central" government would need half a million loyal, well trained, soldiers/police, to actually project power over the whole country. That ain't happening, when they can't even find that many literate people.The Taliban are home. You can't tell the players without a program... and there is no program. The only way to identify a Taliban is he's the one shooting at you. He stops shooting and ducks into a compound, he's gone like a ghost. Nobody's going to rat him out, as a matter of fact when the shooting stops, they bring their wounded to our medics. They would claim to be Innocent bystanders... if anyone asks, but we don't.[/quote]

He said "WE WON", then HE left, but made everyone else stay there.

Hiya Bruce ... interesting, some responses.
Being ambushed is not what I had in mind by "finding the enemy". Finding the ones we want at time when we have the advantage is the trick. I also note you describe how hard it is to tell enemy from neutral later on; you seem to refute yourself.

Limited bombing... a long slow admission of pinpricks will piss someone off, especially if they are already disposed to resent you as a foreigner. Do you seriously think the Afghans wouldn't mind having their country (or territory, or area, whatever) bombed or otherwise struck at?

Howdy TW:
The thing that struck me in your post was the goal "to go after" Bin Laden (etc).
Going after them means we are always a few steps behind, playing catch-up as they recruit new suicide fodder.
The only way to defeat the taliban is to cut off their supply of recruits by shutting down their religious schools (Madrassas) and replacing them with reasonably good quality secular schools. But the taliban know this and violently resist modern education, so this approach wont work without extensive (international) security to protect all schools for a generation, and that is about as likely to happen as the run-off election producing an effective and honest government.

Being ambushed is the only way to find the enemy, when they're everywhere, and you can't tell who in hell they are unless they're shooting at you.
You obviously don't understand, this is unlike normal warfare, where you find out where the enemy is based and attack them with an advantageous plan. Insurgency is a very different animal. In Iraq we made no progress until we became the big dog in the neighborhood, we could protect the population, only then they started helping us to ferret out the bad guys. We can't even begin to do that in Afghanistan, we can hardly protect our own.
I suggest you read Mike Yon's dispatches, here and here, of the day to day operations

The only way the Afghans will know there's bombing, is if it's close enough to hear it. There's virtually no media, except in the cities. Most of the population is in isolated pockets, and they're pragmatic.
They can't tell the difference between the current coalition soldiers and the Russians. Many don't know the Russians ever left, and never saw them, only heard about them, when they were there.
They are more concerned with survival, food on the table now, and through the coming brutal winter. They're concerned about their animals and their crops, and the ones that grow opium are concerned about anyone fucking with their income, which equates with winter survival.
Schools? We ain't got no schools. We don't need no stinking schools. You're confusing Afghanistan with Pakistan.