The War in Afghanistan

[Shryke]

Since Coco's return has coincided with the US pull-out from Iraq, I figured let's talk about the OTHER place where we're all killing brown people:

Afghanistan

So, it's been like almost a decade now since we invaded. The war has been going on so long, I think most people have forgotten how long. It's just ... there now. And yet, instead of winding down, the conflict is only getting deadlier.

But is it going anywhere? Is there any hope for the future of any involvement in the area? What the fuck are we doing over there? What the fuck SHOULD we be doing over there?

Anyway, the US has set a very tentitive date for pull-out of 2011. However:

The new commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, says he will not be bound by a 2011 target date to start withdrawing US troops.

Speaking on NBC television, Gen Petraeus said he reserved the right to tell President Obama whether the pull-out date was too early.

He was speaking after US forces endured their deadliest month in July since the Afghan conflict began in 2001.

And I'm sure we all remember Gen. Stanley McChrystal getting shit-canned earlier this year over this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Canada's current government, trying to be the best GWB clones they can be, seems to be doubling down on the commitment or something. Who the fuck knows.

I'm sure some UKers can pop in and tell us what's up over that side of the pond.

Here's an interesting article from a month or so back about how the Coalition may well be LOOSING this war, steadily: http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government

Beyond that, the question becomes who are these people we're fighting? There's been a very interesting recent video on this by Norwegian documentary journalist Paul Refsdal, who was imbedded with the "Taliban" ealier this year:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/living+with+the+taliban+on+the+afghan+frontline/3734447

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/taliban-primp-sing-snipe-u-s-troops-in-rare-video/

And here's an older video of the same sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obSOmABJorw&feature=player_embedded

So anyway, I thought I'd open this up. I lost an article I wanted to post here, but I'm sure someone can find some interesting stuff for us.

[snake]

Well, the latest reports is that Isaf has killed more civilians although they say it was insurgents.

Story.

IMO, we're only making more enemies in Afghanistan rather than making friends.

[Demonblade]

I, too, consider myself fairly attuned to politics, though I'm more into Canadian than American politics. I do, however, follow American politics because, well, the big giant lives right beside us and it's pretty hard to ignore it. Having said that, I, too, am starting to wonder why we're still there. We're not doing much by way of nation building, nor are we getting very far in securing the countryside. If the US troop surge doesn't work, particularly in the Helmand region, nothing short of nuking the flood-ravaged region of Pakistan is going to stop the flow of Taliban into the country. But of course that's never going to happen, and it is not even a real solution because the 'Taliban' see this as a patriotic war against foreign aggression. We're not even on the same page as to the nature of the conflict. Thinking it that way, it all seems futile.

But then again, I start to think of the Taliban bombing schools and throwing acid on little girls and I'm left to wonder what horrors will come to pass once we do leave, particularly if we leave with our tails between our legs. I think if we can beat the Taliban enough to force them into a peaceful resolution, as well as assuring that they don't pull their more Draconian policies, then we should be able to leave without feeling like we abandoned the women who are almost assured a second-class existence otherwise. Unfortunately I doubt the Taliban are ever going to agree to a kinder, more friendly version of itself so again, it all seems futile.

[delete this account pls]

I'm not really attuned to politics at all, but we just had a federal election, and the silence on Afghanistan from the two major parties was deafening. Even though our country has suffered far more casualties there than we did in Iraq, including two soldiers killed in the middle of the election campaign itself.

[Ser Reptitious]

This conflict really troubles me. I believe that the coalition troops that are over there genuinely mean well, but the odds of them carrying the day are rapidly diminishing. The fact that the government in Kabul is corrupt to the core and committed massive fraud in the last election (thereby undermining whatever legitimacy it may have had previously) is only making matters that much worse.

Afghanistan is quickly turning into another Vietnam and I think eventually the outcome will be much the same (i.e. a "peace with honour" defeat dressed up as some kind of strategically acceptable achievement). I'm sure Obama is well aware of this, but there is simply no way that the U.S. can withdraw under his (or any Democrats') watch. Even if it ultimately happens under a Republican regime it will be hard for America to shake off the perception of weakness and defeat. After all, if you can't even defeat a loose group of fanatics in a desert country that is perpetually stuck in the 7th century, then how can you call yourself the most powerful military nation in the world? China, Russia and others will be secretly pleased and radical groups (particularly Islamists) will be encouraged.

As for unhappy Afghanistan itself, it will probably fall back into the hands of the Taliban and once again experience all the senseless brutality that entails.

It's a very bleak outlook and I keep hoping against hope that somehow the coalition troops will succeed, but I just can't see it happening...

[Lummel]

I am sorta at a loss to explain this war. I can explain the origins very well. But it's more difficult for me to explain the continuity of it. What is the goal? Why are we there? Is it worth it? What are the costs of pulling out completely? I'm not sure.

And there's the problem. If governments can't articulate why we should fight and what victory would or could look like or what the goals are then we can't win. We understand what victory means as a concept but there have to be concrete and measurable objectives rather than vague ideas such as security from terrorist attacks. If the goal was to remove al-qaida from afganistan this would require us to have a far greater level of physical control over the country then we currently have. And then what? If we were to withdraw and allow them to reenter afganistan (assuming that it is possible to remove them in the first place) wouldn't that render our current efforts pointless? The implication is that we would need to maintain a military presence in the area, either our own forces or reliable proxies, for the foreseeable future.

Afghanistan is quickly turning into another Vietnam and I think eventually the outcome will be much the same (i.e. a "peace with honour" defeat dressed up as some kind of strategically acceptable achievement). I'm sure Obama is well aware of this, but there is simply no way that the U.S. can withdraw under his (or any Democrats') watch. Even if it ultimately happens under a Republican regime it will be hard for America to shake off the perception of weakness and defeat. After all, if you can't even defeat a loose group of fanatics in a desert country that is perpetually stuck in the 7th century, then how can you call yourself the most powerful military nation in the world? China, Russia and others will be secretly pleased and radical groups (particularly Islamists) will be encouraged.

Like vietnam the conflict illustates the limitations of hard power (military force) in achieving soft objectives (local goodwill and support). Like vietnam the issues can't be limited to one country either. Muslim extremist violence in the region is complex and seems to be deeply linked into the Pakistan military and intelligence systems, there is the kashmir conflict, (now ongoing since when 1947?) which is constantly reenforcing the idea of militancy, the weakness of afganistan as a state even before 1979 and then the slight difficulty of reestablishing a reliable, reasonably effective central authority in a country that hasn't had one since 1979. Joy.

The reason given in the UK for sending forces to afganistan was that a large percentage of terrorist attacks on the UK originate in afganistan. Which seems to be a remarkably stupid idea. Unless wouldbe terrorist attackers officaly register all attempted attacks on the UK then we can't be sure where terrorist attacks originate from. In any case since 100% of terrorist attacks on the UK were executed in the UK that's really a reason to improve security at home not an excuse for foriegn adventures.

[Hereward]

Well, to nitpick, the reason given for sending troops to Afghanistan was originally the mutual defence clause in the NATO treaty, which I fully supported and still do. The argument about the origin of terrorist attacks on the UK, OTOH, is being used to justify continued involvement and holds very little, if any, water.

What to do now? I have no idea. Partition and encirclement would probably work best if it didn't have worrying wider geopolitical ramifications, but of course it does. I note the idea is being subtly put out there, though.

[Lummel]

Well, to nitpick, the reason given for sending troops to Afghanistan was originally the mutual defence clause in the NATO treaty, which I fully supported and still do. The argument about the origin of terrorist attacks on the UK, OTOH, is being used to justify continued involvement and holds very little, if any, water.

What to do now? I have no idea. Partition and encirclement would probably work best if it didn't have worrying wider geopolitical ramifications, but of course it does. I note the idea is being subtly put out there, though.

No that's a fair nitpick. For as long as we are committed to NATO then we have to abide by the treaty.

[Usotsuki]

Which gives me an opportunity to nitpick the nitpick - o frabjous day.

Article Five does not exist, or more accurately a state's obligations under Article Five are entirely determined by that state:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The UK could technically have abided by the treaty by sending a stern note to the Taliban asking them not to do that again - I doubt it would have had a positive impact on US-UK relationships but NATO commitments have always come with the "only if we want to" clause.

[Lummel]

The UK could technically have abided by the treaty by sending a stern note to the Taliban asking them not to do that again - I doubt it would have had a positive impact on US-UK relationships but NATO commitments have always come with the "only if we want to" clause.

For sure if you're a small NATO country you could get away with sending a dog handling unit, hard to do that if you are a country with a relatively massive expenditure on the military not to mention a certain special relationship with the USA which leaves us sitting by the phone hoping that they will call and invite us over for the weekend.

[Usotsuki]

Lummel, indeed, though I hear we're flirting with India in IT class these days, there are consequences to a failure to support our beloved cousins in their hour of need/standing aloof from the latest imperialist adventure of the capitalist pigdogs*.

But the clarion call that "we must abide by our treaty obligations" should be voiced only after we've checked the actual treaty.

*delete according to newspaper of choice.

[The Iceman of the North]

Anyway, I would have loved to write a more detailed essay, but I'm rushing to do work right now.

Come now Coco, what kind of prioritizing is this?

[Guest Raidne]

What I came around to thinking the last time we had this thread is that we've been screwing up how this is supposed to work ever since WWII, in this way: it is very important to have a surrender. This is when the war is officially over.

As mentioned in the other thread, Americans and the Japanese, in tandem, spent quite a long time after the surrender was delcared chasing down rogue troops who did not want to surrender. And the Japanese government had to put down an insurgency even to be able to surrender. And that's how it should work.

You need a public surrender by the government you invaded. And then you work together to wrap it up, but the war is over. You do not instill a new government before you have a surrender.

Man did we collosally screw that up here. I mean, of course the various terrorist organizations at work are not going to surrender. Ever. Who can? Some leader of the Taliban? And then, what about the fact that we've already instilled a new government?

In Germany, it looks like we demanded unconditional surrenders from all the generals in the various theaters.

Obama kind of talked about this in his speech, saying that we're past the era where the enemy surrenders. Well, we're past the strategy where the enemy surrenders in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm not sure that we're really past the era. I think we've just been doing it wrong.

It's war. It's not pretty. The populace, the government, etc. - they are your enemy until the surrender. Then you work together to put down insurgencies, etc.

[The Progressive]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0903/Kabul-Bank-run-may-pose-more-immediate-threat-than-Afghan-Taliban

This banking crisis is a more immediate and urgent threat to the Karzai government than the Taliban.

I'm willing to bet that a time-table for withdrawal will be set by 2011 with draw down starting in 2012 ..... it's all about saving faces now.

[Guest Raidne]

Coco, the United States Congress declared war on Afghanistan on September 14, 2001. It's not a War Powers policing action like in Bosnia - it's a for real war.

IMO, we should have gotten some kind of surrender back in 2001 when we ousted the Taliban out of Kabul in the first place. Then, at that point, we could have said that the war was over, and what was going on from that point forward was a rebuilding effort.

Those lasted for a long, long, long time in Japan and Germany as well.

ETA: I'm not sure what we should do going forward. I guess we do the surge, declare some kind of success, and then, just like in Iraq, declare combat operations over and get on with the long rebuilding process. It's not very neat and clean, but no end to any war really ever was.

[ljkeane]

What I came around to thinking the last time we had this thread is that we've been screwing up how this is supposed to work ever since WWII, in this way: it is very important to have a surrender. This is when the war is officially over.

What is it that you're actually suggesting? The Taliban don't seem to actually want to surrender so what were the ISAF supposed to do differently in the past 10 years?

[The Iceman of the North]

IMO, we should have gotten some kind of surrender back in 2001 when we ousted the Taliban out of Kabul in the first place.

Wouldn't that require an enemy that was actually willing to surrender? The Taliban never gave up fighting. Ousting them from Kabul just meant that they withdrew elsewhere and continued fighting, while new groups popped up starting fighting.

[Guest Raidne]

What I'm suggesting we do now is laid out in my last post, i.e. basically the same thing we just did in Iraq. That seems to be the least bad solution.

What I'm suggesting we do should we find ourselves fighting new wars in the future is what I've said about getting a surrender from the government we go to war with. I mean, it's not like Hitler and the Nazis were real inclined to wave the white flag either, you know?

I think there is a narrative that we've told that war is different now, and WWII is a totally different situation, and I think that narrative is false. The only difference is that certain actions are even more unsavory when there is a huge superpower fighting a country that is nowhere near an even match for it. That's it.

[ljkeane]

What I'm suggesting we do should we find ourselves fighting new wars in the future is what I've said about getting a surrender from the government we go to war with. I mean, it's not like Hitler and the Nazis were real inclined to wave the white flag either, you know?

I don't think that reflects the reality of the situation, so far as I can tell the ISAF has never been in a postion to get a surrender from the Taliban. Just the opposite actually, most of the reports I've seen seem to suggest that the Taliban think they're winning.

[The Progressive]

What to do now? I have no idea. Partition and encirclement would probably work best if it didn't have worrying wider geopolitical ramifications, but of course it does. I note the idea is being subtly put out there, though.

Could you elaborate on this a bit more, Hereward? How would it be partitioned and what part would be encircled and by whom?