The War in Afghanistan

[DanteGabriel]

I battled with you, EHK and Dante for months about Afghanistan, and it turns out I'm right, so let me spell it out for you in 4 words: I told you so. This was a mistake from the beginning, and Obama decided to pour salt on a wound.

Really? I don't remember that.

I remember battling with you about Obama, and whether or not a vote for a third party candidate was a wasted vote, but I'm pretty sure I never got that deep into the debate over whether or not being in Afghanistan was a good idea -- I just don't recall ever being that gung-ho about being in Afghanistan at all. And I'm pretty sure that I know better than to get into a debate about land wars in Asia. ;)

[Lummel]

Hmm, what's the (current) fighting's about? Seems pretty straightforward: Establishing a strong&stable government in Afghanistan that will work against radical Islamic movements and global terror and rebuild their country.

Is it impossible? I don't think so. If we compare it to the task the Soviet Union set out to do there (Eradicate Religion from the land and replace it with the very alien concepts of Communism in Afghanistan of all places) what the USA and its allies aim for is much easier: Establishing a moderately more moderate version of the native religion and insurance against world domination ideas. This is not aiming for the sky. Nobody today even dreams of demanding that women would stop hiding their hair, the straw that broke the USSR's control on Afghanistan.

I think people make too much out of the corruption of Afghani regime. Corruption is pretty much expected. What matters is how much the needs of the people are seen to and who is the face of the government in the street (that is, who does the government employ and/or work with)

OK, but you can't establish a strong and stable government in afganistan by fighting. By fighting we can kill adherants of radical islamic movements but we can't establish a moderate version of islam, nor can we meet the needs of the people by shooting at them. We've been fighting for years but still haven't even managed to create a sufficient level of non-violence let alone peace over a sufficiently large area of the country to allow government to meet the needs of the people and that's assuming that anybody in the afghan government believes that the proper function of government is to meet the needs of the people.

Looking at the current level of fuss in the USA over a moderate islamic group to set up a cultural centre in new york it's hard to believe that the USA could introduce or foster moderate islam in afganistan.

The best we can probably hope for is that the region slowly and thoroughly falls under chinese influence. And really from the geostrategical perspective of Washington, that's not a terribly good outcome either, but possibly the least worst.

[shadowbinding shoe]

OK, but you can't establish a strong and stable government in afganistan by fighting. By fighting we can kill adherants of radical islamic movements but we can't establish a moderate version of islam, nor can we meet the needs of the people by shooting at them. We've been fighting for years but still haven't even managed to create a sufficient level of non-violence let alone peace over a sufficiently large area of the country to allow government to meet the needs of the people and that's assuming that anybody in the afghan government believes that the proper function of government is to meet the needs of the people.

Looking at the current level of fuss in the USA over a moderate islamic group to set up a cultural centre in new york it's hard to believe that the USA could introduce or foster moderate islam in afganistan.

The best we can probably hope for is that the region slowly and thoroughly falls under chinese influence. And really from the geostrategical perspective of Washington, that's not a terribly good outcome either, but possibly the least worst.

Sure, the USA has a lot of room to improve. As for other regional superpowers China is nowhere near as important as Pakistan and India. They are both hard at work on that 'soft power' angle in Afghanistan. China just wants to do business.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Hmm, what's the (current) fighting's about? Seems pretty straightforward: Establishing a strong&stable government in Afghanistan that will work against radical Islamic movements and global terror and rebuild their country.

I hope our mission is even more narrow that that. It really is just having a government in place that won't accept radical islamic movements using it as a safe haven for attacks outside the country. So the strategic goal should be to separate both the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban from AQ. That's a narrow enough goal that it opens up a pretty wide range of political compromises/solutions we might find acceptable.

[Lummel]

Problem is if we want to leave afganistan at some point in the far off future we need to have a government there that is capable of keeping itself in place, can prevent organisations from using the country to some extent as a safe haven for attacks on third parties and doesn't want to accept radical islamic movements.

At the same time the presence of our forces makes it difficult for that to happen - we are a source of power and authority in the country that trumps all local authority. We are a source of money and patronage that dwarves any attempt to raise money through taxation or legimate business activity. Why bother to stick to the straight and narrow if corruption allows you gain wealth and more importantly keep it.

If an effective government and a civil society don't develop or can't develop we'll have to maintain a strong troop presence indefinately in order to keep kabul independant of the talibann.

[Horza]

Wait, if all you're doing is propping up Kabul doesn't that expressly mean that AQ could reopen camps in the South?

The criteria most people are using for maintaining the war effort in Afghanistan would currently justify invasions of Pakistan and Yemen at a minimum - if they aren't candidates for such despite being weak states with uncontrolled territories and more AQ operatives then why are we pouring all this blood and treasure into Afghanistan now?

[Brandon Stark]

Can't we spin the appearance of weakness that withdrawal would bring fairly easily? We train and arm insurgent forces so well that even we can't root them out. That has to count for something...

[Hereward]

I think the Blackadder the Third option is now the best. We kick them in the balls, set fire to the building and in the confusion claim a draw.

[Hereward]

Once again, it's not my plan. :) The latest speculation seems to have been sparked by former US ambassador to India, Mr Blackwill, though it seems to be getting some traction in Europe. Stupid idea, as I said. The Taleban rejected it when suggested by the ISI and Dostum rejected it when suggested by the Soviets.

[Shryke]

Obama was wrong in 2008, as I've shown you, Obama is wrong now, and he continues to make it worse every day. He is now continuing a war against the American people's wishes.

Except not against the wishes of the American people. You know, that might be a factor.

But far be it from me to get in the way of your grudge.

Exactly what are we talking about? How nobody could have known? Hahaha, did you let Wall Street get away with that in regard to the financial crisis?

"Oh my god, how could we have known???? It was such a hard issue! So many factors!"

Hahahha

The Wall Street financial crisis was pretty fucking simple actually. Afghanistan? Not so much I'd say.

But, you know, you keep yelling it's 7:52. Stopped clock and all that.

[Shryke]

You're right, it was too complicated to understand, Shryke. That's why nobody but myself was saying Afghanistan was a mistake :laugh:

"OMG! How could we have known this was going to happen? Oh my gosh, there's just so many factors! So much to study! I don't have time to read books!"

"Graveyard of Empires! Graveyard of Empires! Graveyard of Empires! Graveyard of Empires! Graveyard of Empires! Graveyard of Empires! ...."

Yes, this is bringing back memories of your posting.

[The Progressive]

So you think that the US ought to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan, Coco?

[Hereward]

But the question will remain as to how to deal with Al-Qaeda linked cells. They cannot be allowed to rebuild structures and capability, and the US will not be able to bump them off in Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan without a nearby base to fly drones from.

Edit: The House of Commons will vote for the first time later today on whether Britain should continue to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan. The vote will be in favour, but it will interesting to see who steps out of line.

[Hereward]

In that case we disagree. Most, but by no means all, of the Al-Qaeda leadership is dead, but it's motivation and support not only remain, but have grown stronger. Now that is certainly partially down to how we have acted in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, but we are where we are. So, enough of the leadership remain, its publicity operation is largely undiminished and the desire to join it is increased. All they lack is a secure base (and a much needed perceived military victory).

So, what next? All I can see is a deal with the Taliban that they sacrifice some of their leadership for PR purposes, promise (cross their heart and hope to die) that they will never again host Al-Qaeda or anything like it, allow the Tajiks and Uzbeks effective but not literal independence, we pull out and recognise their government, and tell them in no uncertain terms that we'll be back again if they break the terms (like hell).

[Hereward]

Continuing the meddling in foreign governments is just going to exacerbate it. All research on terrorism points to that fact. I mean, you're talking Yemen and the Sahel, just to name some more places that we could justify invading in order to "stop them from building bases". When does it stop, exactly?

I think this war on terror needs to end, immediately. We lost. We have killed so many people. An incredible number of lives have been snuffed out because of our rage over 9/11, and there is jack shit to show for it.

The only permanent answer that doesn't involve creating more terror is negotiation.

But that doesn't address the actual problem, let alone the perceived and political problems. The desire to repeat 9/11 is still there. Military occupation doesn't work, true. But pulling back to home turf and building a fucking great wall around yourself won't work either. Al Qaeda isn't interested in negotiation. So, some combination of a covert operation, a decent publicity campaign, and motivating regimes to clean their own houses has to replace the "War on Terror", and that has it's own massive downsides. But still, saying "this shouldn't have happened, let's be friends" is not a workable strategy.

[Hereward]

Well, I didn't talk about occupying other countries. On the contrary, I said it didn't work. And I didn't say the aim was to figh the "desire". I said the desire was still there, so some strategy would have to be tried to prevent the desire from being carried out. I'm not sure what the objection to "playing games with foreign governments is in the real world. That's what diplomacy is.

You're still not giving any indication of a strategy to prevent another catastrophic attack, other than "let's negotiate", which is a non-starter in the case of Al Qaeda.

Also, fighting ideas has been the basis of geopolitics for longer than anyone can remember. It just can't, normally, be done with a single blunt instrument.

[Hereward]

You talked about having bases in which to launch drones to strike at targets in other countries. Sounds like occupation to me.

That was in an earlier post about the likely objections from the US, not in the post in which I outlined what I saw as potential, though incredibly problematic, options.

"Fighting the urge to carry out a desire" is fighting the desire.

No, I was talking about fighting the acquisition of further means to carry out the desire.

There's plenty of strategies for preventing another attack, and the 9/11 commission hit it right on the head: stop playin'. There needs to be a radical change in foreign policy, which might include listening to our enemies.

Agreed, to a certain extent. However, you can't stop playing a game, even if it's not the (current) game, unless you have someone else to play it for you. But I don't believe that will suffice on its own. Not all enemies are rational, not all are reconcilable, and even those who are require treating with a range of options, including negotiation, rather than just negotiation alone; the carrot and the stick.

[Hereward]

I agree with you to some extent. We have the recent example of the IRA after all. However, the IRA had to come to the realisation that they couldn't win before any talks could start. That didn't come about because they had a Damascene conversion. It came about because the British government dropped its absolutist position, i.e they offered a means to achieve their aims peacefully, plus they exerted such military and covert pressure, in a way I'm sure you'd fundamentally oppose, that the personal risks became unsustainable, leading to them being willing to put their house in order. In short, a combination of dirty politics, targeted assassination, threat of future force and concessions such as I described upthread. And still there are diehards.

However, that's not where the Taleban are, because they're winning, and that's certainly not where Al-Qaeda are because we have nothing they want that we'd be willing to give.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree with you to some extent. We have the recent example of the IRA after all. However, the IRA had to come to the realisation that they couldn't win before any talks could start. That didn't come about because they had a Damascene conversion. It came about because the British government dropped its absolutist position, i.e they offered a means to achieve their aims peacefully, plus they exerted such military and covert pressure, in a way I'm sure you'd fundamentally oppose, that the personal risks became unsustainable, leading to them being willing to put their house in order. In short, a combination of dirty politics, targeted assassination, threat of future force and concessions such as I described upthread. And still there are diehards.

However, that's not where the Taleban are, because they're winning, and that's certainly not where Al-Qaeda are because we have nothing they want that we'd be willing to give.

That's very well said. Sometimes, the parties have to bleed before being willing to accept a solution that both rejected before the fighting began. At some level, that's what happened with the "Anbar Awakening".

[The Progressive]

Woodward's new book, "Obama's Wars", is making a splash recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/books/23book.html

Mr. Woodward reports that Mr. Obama was so determined to avoid a Vietnam-like morass that he drew up his own six-page “terms sheet” — “similar to a legal document used in a business deal” — to contain the military’s push for an expanded footprint. This November 2009 memo, included at the end of the book, specifies American goals (including to “deny safe haven to al Qaeda” and to “degrade,” rather than defeat, “the Taliban insurgency”), and it provides guidelines for “building sufficient Afghan capacity to secure and govern their country,” noting that “this approach is not fully resourced counterinsurgency or nation building, but a narrower approach.” Like other reporters, Mr. Woodward describes Mr. Obama as engaged in a methodical decision process that is nearly the polar opposite of the gut calls and out-of-channels policy making of the Bush administration, which Mr. Woodward mapped in four earlier books. Mr. Obama is seen repeatedly questioning his aides and the military about the actual United States mission in Afghanistan and underlying assumptions about the war.