Afghanistan finally moves into the Lose column

[GreenGoo]

I don't for a minute believe those are the biggest factors in the numbers we're comparing, although I don't dispute the statements are true.

How many days in total have there been "active fighting" with both sides shooting back at each other in Afghanistan? Are there even 2 sides to the conflict there?

There is no question that technology has enabled more accurate killing with less risk than ever before. I just don't believe that that is the major reason for the number disparity between the Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts.

[edit: Grammar tweak, typo fix]

[Grifman]

Peak US troops in Vietnam: 543,000. Casualties: 58,000.
Peak US troops in Afghanistan: 130,000. Casualties: About 1,500.

What a difference 40 years makes. A reduction in casualties of an order of magnitude is hard to beat within the span of half a lifetime.

Well, there's very little fighting in comparison.

The biggest factors: Volunteer forces are better trained and disciplined than draftees, and battlefield trauma care has progressed mightily. The downside is that we're producing more disabled vets.

I don't have enough knowledge to speculate about the difference between concussion injuries (bombs) versus gunshot wounds, but I suspect that the former are easier to armor against.

But we digress.

Even more so than these factors, the other difference is the size of the enemy forces and size of engagements. The Taliban have only around 25,000 fighters. The NVA/Viet Cong had at least 150,000 to 200,000. In addition, it was not unusual for there to be engagements at the company, battalion, regiment, even division level a times. That just doesn't happen in Afghanistan. Most combats involve relative handfuls of men. Indeed, a lot of our casualties are by IED, which doesn't even involve combat.

[Grifman]

Yes, they can outlast us in the field. But I'm not convinced that fighting forever is their best strategy. The question is whether they are convinced of that as well. Maybe that's what makes this summer's fight so crucial.

With this I agree - this summer will be crucial. Though we may not see the actual results until the next year.

[Smoove_B]

Seems like there's some disagreement over what we should be doing.

Barack Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election.

The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013.

I would hope that the withdrawal is because we've been there for over a decade and not because of a looming election. But the idea that we would keep troop numbers high until 2013? Inconceivable.

That would still leave about 70,000 troops, with all combat troops scheduled to leave by 2014, provided that Afghan forces are ready to take over.

I can't believe we're still 3 years out. Insane.

[YellowKing]

The whole thing fills me with OUTRAGE. Guess Obama is willing to trade our tenuous security in Afghanistan for a tenuous bump in poll numbers come 2012.

Don't look at the economy! Look over here! Soldiers coming home, with puppies!

Voting for him was the worst mistake I've made since I was able to punch a ballot. But I guess a guy who feels free to conduct military operations in Libya without Congressional approval finds it pretty easy to tell his generals in Afghanistan to fuck off too.

[Victoria Raverna]

Karzai: They’re here for their own purposes, for their own goals, and they’re using our soil for that.

Maybe you have overstayed your welcome?

It is not possible to win since more people fight against US the longer the troops stay there. The solution is to leave as soon as possible and let Karzai deal with the mess.

How many more Americans have to die to prop up Karzai's regime?

[El Guapo]

It's interesting that keeping troop levels high until November 2012 versus 2013 is potentially a difference of all of two months.

I dunno. I want to see a good outcome in Afghanistan, but then if we can't do that in 10 years, what's the evidence that another few months or a year is going to make the difference? Anyways, like others I hope Obama's making these decisions for the policy, not for the politics, but it can be hard to distinguish the two.

[msduncan]

Karzai: They’re here for their own purposes, for their own goals, and they’re using our soil for that.

Maybe you have overstayed your welcome?

It is not possible to win since more people fight against US the longer the troops stay there. The solution is to leave as soon as possible and let Karzai deal with the mess.

How many more Americans have to die to prop up Karzai's regime?

Of course we are there for our own reasons. We've always been there for our own reasons, and rightfully so.

[msduncan]

The whole thing fills me with OUTRAGE. Guess Obama is willing to trade our tenuous security in Afghanistan for a tenuous bump in poll numbers come 2012.

Don't look at the economy! Look over here! Soldiers coming home, with puppies!

Voting for him was the worst mistake I've made since I was able to punch a ballot. But I guess a guy who feels free to conduct military operations in Libya without Congressional approval finds it pretty easy to tell his generals in Afghanistan to fuck off too.

Mr. President: It's the economy, stupid.

[GreenGoo]

Voting for him was the worst mistake I've made since I was able to punch a ballot.

This has had me scratching my head since the moment you first mentioned it, about a nano-second after the polls closed in 2008.

I don't get it. What heinous crimes has he committed that has turned you so sour on him?

As Smoove said, 3 years out still? Why? What is the end result in Afghanistan? There was less chance for a stable government there than in Iraq, and Iraq isn't doing all that great. In fact, Afghanistan exists solely to chase terrorists. I'm not really sure how much terrorist chasing is still going on there.

Obama has pulled some stupid ass moves for sure. Enough to draw this kind of ire though? You're mad that he's pulling out of Afghanistan, but you're mad that he's in Libya? Of course he has failed to get congressional consent, which is moronic, but chances are slim that that consent would have been withheld, so the end result is essentially the same. i.e. military action in Libya. He's like a kid with so much time to hand in his assignment that he just forgets to. But I agree, stupid. Anger inducing? Really?

I just don't get you Yellowking. Since day one I've read what you've written. But I can't follow along with your thought process. At all. So yeah, probably should stick to partisan lines if it makes it less anger inducing.

[GreenGoo]

Of course we are there for our own reasons. We've always been there for our own reasons, and rightfully so.

Agreed. Over stayed our welcome? What welcome? I don't remember any Afghans asking for Canadian assistance, but there we are too.

[Kraken]

Afghanistan will not be ruled by a central government anytime soon, and Karzai is hardly the man to change that. We're backing a losing horse. But so is Iran, so at least there's some comfort in that.

Bad puppet!

If the mission was to crush al Qaeda and get bin Laden, it's as over as it will ever be. If the mission was to turn Afghanistan into a modern, friendly nation, it will never be over.

[Arcanis]

I can't remember who it was but I heard some guy, reporter or ambassador maybe, talking about his experience in Afg. He basically said the people there don't want a national government they just want to live the tribal life they always had. There is no real winning there and I think the general's know this. What the speaker said was he believes the generals just want to weaken al Qaeda enough so they can't take over any time soon, which sounds right to me.

I believe those on the left are pushing for too fast of a withdrawal, I won't put the president in this group yet since he hasn't announce his plan. We need to see what his plan is and more importantly see how much of his decision is political and how much is based on what his generals are telling him, you know the guys who actually know about military tactics and strategy.

I understand where YK is coming from on Lybia though. It doesn't matter that congress would have approved the involvement there, he is breaking the rules by not making the request. He doesn't believe that the actions he has taken meet the requirements of the war powers act, but I think that is just an excuse and he wants to flip off congress and act like a petulant child about it. He is arrogant enough to think he can do pretty much what ever he wants without following the obvious rules in place on some of these actions. I think this is a purely political move. He either gets to put his thumb in the eye of congress and show how great he is (in his own mind at least), or he forces the Reps. to de-fund the action there and gets to play the same game Bush did with the Dem. controlled congress and claim they are trying to take away necessities for troops.

[El Guapo]

If the mission was to crush al Qaeda and get bin Laden, it's as over as it will ever be. If the mission was to turn Afghanistan into a modern, friendly nation, it will never be over.

This is basically the position that I'm leaning towards. On the one hand it's easy to see lots of bad things happening in Afghanistan once we leave (another round of civil war and/or the Taliban reconquering Afghanistan both seem plausible). And what exactly do we do if the Taliban do take over Afghanistan again? Would that make the fighting and sacrifice up to this point for naught?

On the other it's hard to see that substantially changing with another few years of fighting at current force levels. And hard to imagine us putting the troops in harms way for another several years.

Of course, Iraq seemed completely hopeless in 2006, and now there's a plausible reasonably good outcome. But Afghanistan by nature is many times more daunting than Iraq was in 2006.

[Kraken]

It doesn't matter that congress would have approved the involvement there, he is breaking the rules by not making the request.

Senate considers a big thumbs up. Not that anyone asked them. Obama's position on this puzzles me, since he's mostly a by-the-books kind of guy. He must be making some lawyerly point of conduct that escapes mortal comprehension.

Of course, Iraq seemed completely hopeless in 2006, and now there's a plausible reasonably good outcome. But Afghanistan by nature is many times more daunting than Iraq was in 2006.

Specifically, Iraq was a functioning nation before we wiped out its government, whereas Afghanistan has never been a conventional nation-state and does not aspire to become one.

Our objective seems to be to make Karzai the baddest kid on the block (which we can do) and compel his compliance with US policy through dependence on massive US aid (which we probably can't...witness the big bags of money he's accepting from Iran).

As you noted, we've already invested a lot in Karzai. It's hard to know if we should throw good lives after bad, or just cut our losses now. Political inertia being what it is, we will not leave until we're confident that Karzai can beat up everybody else.

Let's not even bring the Pakistani complication into it.

[Scuzz]

Afghanistan will never be a peaceful westernized oasis free of radical wackos or muslim warlords. We haven't changed that in 10 years we won't change that in 20.

We should get out of there and then prepare to get out of Iraq.

Then we should get reduce troop strength in europe and asia.

[El Guapo]

I don't know that we're expecting Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) to become a "peaceful westernized oasis" anytime soon. I think a resounding success would consist of a few things: (1) Primarily, a reasonably stable government that can control most of its territory most of the time; and as a bonus (2) has quasi-democratic institutions, even if said institutions are weak and/or abused.

Afghanistan doesn't need to become England; it just needs to have a government capable of preventing its own overthrow, to not be actively supporting anti-U.S. terrorist groups, and to at least make pretend feigns towards democracy. Ideally the democratic institutions would then help the country gradually grow towards a real democracy in time.

Sadly it's questionable whether even that's realistic within the time frame before a withdrawal (not just Obama's proposed withdrawal timeframe). It looks like (from what I've read) that Iraq may well be able to meet that, however.

[Holman]

The whole thing fills me with OUTRAGE. Guess Obama is willing to trade our tenuous security in Afghanistan for a tenuous bump in poll numbers come 2012.

The alternative seems to be trading our whole economy for tenuous security in Afghanistan.

I have wavered back on forth on this war. Right now it looks like we can secure every inch of Afghanistan that it is within the line of sight of an American soldier, as long as the soldier doesn't blink. Paying soldiers for this is expensive, some of them die, and I'm not even sure what they're protecting us from. The breeding ground for terror has migrated from secret camps in Tora Bora to open websites on the internet. Is there a way to invade the internet?

Whatever solution might be best now, it seems like our biggest mistake was Karzai after all. It won't be long before he declares that the U.S. is no longer a welcome security force but an invading presence in the new Afghanistan. A drawdown now might be designed to avoid a clusterf*ck embarrassment later.

P.S. I wonder the address tonight, which is purportedly all about Afghanistan, won't also include mention of impending scale-back in Libya? It would fit the theme.

[Smoove_B]

The whole thing fills me with OUTRAGE. Guess Obama is willing to trade our tenuous security in Afghanistan for a tenuous bump in poll numbers come 2012.

I'm not totally convinced it's an election thing (yet), but the more I think about it I do wonder what he's supposed to do -- because I can't see a way for him to do anything that will make everybody happy.

If he continues to light money on fire into 2013 and 2014 supporting whatever it is that we're doing in Afghanistan, his political enemies are going to take him to task over the financial insanity.

If he indicates he's stepping up the withdrawal ahead of schedule, his political enemies will accuse him of trying to "cut and run" and not finishing the job over there.

The alternative seems to be trading our whole economy for tenuous security in Afghanistan.

Exactly.

[msduncan]

The alternative seems to be trading our whole economy for tenuous security in Afghanistan.

I have wavered back on forth on this war. Right now it looks like we can secure every inch of Afghanistan that it is within the line of sight of an American soldier, as long as the soldier doesn't blink. Paying soldiers for this is expensive, some of them die, and I'm not even sure what they're protecting us from. The breeding ground for terror has migrated from secret camps in Tora Bora to open websites on the internet. Is there a way to invade the internet?

Maybe you are on to something here. We should secretly pay members of Anonymous to attack terror-linked websites.

[Smoove_B]

More from the Guardian:

At present it is estimated that the annual post-withdrawal bill for the US to sustain the Afghan security forces will be $6bn to $8bn a year – a figure that has caused alarm in Washington and which officials in charge of Nato's military mission are looking to reduce.

A factor that will make regime collapse unlikely is the fact that even after full transition has happened by the end of 2014 there will still be a significant foreign military presence.

$6-8 billion a year POST-withdrawal? I mean really.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah"

From here

[YellowKing]

This has had me scratching my head since the moment you first mentioned it, about a nano-second after the polls closed in 2008.

I don't get it. What heinous crimes has he committed that has turned you so sour on him?

It's in small part what he's done, and in large part what he hasn't done.

There are two types of bosses, and I've worked for both kinds. There are the ones that get things done, even if doesn't make them popular. Then there are the ones that want to be everybody's friend and end up accomplishing nothing. I think Obama's a textbook example of the latter.

The problem is that I feel like that approach has seriously damaged America's reputation and power abroad. Now, under other presidents the public has sometimes been able to stomach foreign policy fubars as long as the homefront was good. Obama's other problem is that he hasn't done anything back home either. The economy is still in the shitter, many think we might be headed for the double-dip recession. The healthcare debaucle is a mess.

In short, under Obama's watch we're rapidly falling from superpower status. He has weakened us abroad, and he has weakened us at home. He went from the great motivator to the great hibernator. He just seems out of touch with reality. Where is this strong, YES WE CAN guy I voted for? All I see is this aloof guy leading by consensus, whose only spark of fire comes at election time. He's not a President, he's a politician. He should have stayed a politician, because he's a brilliant one.

[El Guapo]

I'm curious YK, what do you think he should do in Afghanistan?

[Exodor]

Then there are the ones that want to be everybody's friend and end up accomplishing nothing.

You mean other than ending the Iraq war and killing OBL, right?

And stabilizing Afghanistan, I suppose.

Then there's health care reform, financial reform, ending DADT and a massive stimulus/tax cut.

Oh yeah, saving Chrysler and GM and helping them become profitable

But other than that, what have the Romans Obama ever done for us?


You can disagree with what he's done (I'm not super fond of the stimulus) but I think it's false to claim he's done nothing

[Holman]

You can disagree with what he's done (I'm not super fond of the stimulus) but I think it's false to claim he's done nothing

Not to mention how much of it has been in the face of the opposition's OMG HE MUST BE STOPPED! narrative.

Or the fact that he has had to actually get *Democrats* lined up to do these things.

[YellowKing]

I'm curious YK, what do you think he should do in Afghanistan?

Oh, I think it's a money pit and we should eventually get out now that Bin Laden is toast. What I didn't like about Obama's decision was to do it in contradiction of the recommendation of the generals on the ground. However, from what I'm reading today the withdrawal was on the table from Petraeus, it was just one of the more aggressive timelines. So that tempers my outrage a bit. I'm not foolish enough to believe that we can ever turn that place into a utopia. As I believe I have related on these boards before, a good buddy of mine was over there for a year and a half so I heard first-hand accounts of the difficulties in getting the Afghan people to do anything remotely resembling helping themselves move towards modern civilization.

You can disagree with what he's done (I'm not super fond of the stimulus) but I think it's false to claim he's done nothing

Iraq war would have ended regardless of who was in office. Same of OBL most likely (though I admit Obama did it way cooler). I think the idea that Obama "stabilized" Afghanistan is stretching things a bit - I don't believe for a second that place is anywhere close to stable, though I'm not claiming another President could have done any better.

Healthcare reform is a dubious accomplishment since nobody seems to be happy with it. Financial reform was inevitable given the clusterfuck the economy was in.

I guess I don't see most of the things he's done as "Obama" things. They're more like things any suit would have had to do in the role. We shall see next year what the public thinks.

[gbasden]

Or the fact that he has had to actually get *Democrats* lined up to do these things.

A salient point. That should make his accomplishments count double, maybe more.

[GreenGoo]

The problem is that I feel like that approach has seriously damaged America's reputation and power abroad.

I don't even know how to respond to this, other than to ask the obvious. Do you feel today that America is less respected or more respected by "outsiders" than it was during Bush's tenure?

I ask because as somewhat lackluster as Obama has been in certain areas, just not being Bush and not giving the finger to the rest of the world constantly has done wonders for America's PR.

Now if you are talking about more serious, actual foreign policy and perceived negotiating power and such....then I still don't see it, although I could be overlooking something.

[dbt1949]

So we're going to declare ourselves the winner and leave.
Sounds familiar.....

[Kraken]

Reading between the lines of several different reports and analyses from various sources, came away with this....

The only way out is a negotiated settlement with the Taliban that leaves a well-armed, "progressive" (or what passes for it in that region) central government in charge of Kabul and the northern part of the country. The Taliban will be given two southern provinces in return for repudiating al Qaeda and promising not to attack areas under government control. That's the broad outline of current negotiations. Sucks to be a southerner who's being kicked back to the 12th century, but presumably the majority of people living there are hardcore fundies, and those who aren't will have a chance to emigrate.

The most delicate part is getting around Karzai. His kleptocracy is a criminal organization that isn't acceptable to either the Americans or the Taliban, so replacing him and his gang (probably under cover of the 2014 elections) will be critical. The biggest risk seems to be that he will turn on us (declaring us an occupying power and allying with the Taliban and Iran) before we can turn on him.

[Arcanis]

Perhaps as a token of our good will we can invite Karzai to go deer hunting with the former VP.

[Holman]

Presumably any new settlement will keep Western "advisors" on the ground in the U.S.-leaning part of the country. I would expect drone strikes against suspected terrorist leaders to continue through the 2028 elections.

People seem to be talking about a "counter-terror" force of 15,000-25,000 remaining in the country even after the end of the war. That's a lot of troops.

Anyway, a chart I saw shows troop strengths even at the end of 2012 to be about double the number present when Obama took office: (bigimg)

[Smoove_B]

As stated earlier he can't win:

...some Republicans are toting the hawkish line of following the wishes of the military and to continue to put forward a strong national defense. Others suggest the war should be ended sooner to save the hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends in Afghanistan yearly.

Even the candidates running to replace President Obama are somewhat split. They are all trying to appeal to GOP voters who oppose the president, but also to the many Americans who oppose the continued war effort in Afghanistan as well as those who want government spending reduced at all costs. The reactions of three of the leading Republicans show a wide range in the reaction among the president's opponents.

[Smoove_B]

Fareed Zakaria has some interesting observations:

Whatever their strength, American troops will not determine success in Afghanistan. Nor will the newly formed Afghan National Army. As U.S. forces are gradually withdrawn over the next three years, it is Pakistan’s 600,000-strong army that will become the dominant military force in the region and will try to shape its future. But that military is undergoing a deep internal crisis of identity, its most serious since Pakistan’s founding in 1947. How it resolves this crisis will determine its future, the future of the Afghan war — and much else

[Grifman]

The solution here is simple. Tell the Taliban that they either make peace or assuming they seize power after we leave, we will make it impossible for them to govern. Mullah Omar wants to move to the Presidential palace, we bomb it. The Taliban move into the Foreign Ministry, we bomb it. Their army moves into barracks and bases, we bomb them. We bomb all the roads and bridges we built. We can make it possible for the Taliban to function as a govt and there's nothing they can do to stop it. We can make it an impossible for them to govern as they can do it to us. We simply do it from the air while they do it as guerrillas. So let them take power and see what good it does them.

[Holman]

The solution here is simple. Tell the Taliban that they either make peace or assuming they seize power after we leave, we will make it impossible for them to govern. Mullah Omar wants to move to the Presidential palace, we bomb it. The Taliban move into the Foreign Ministry, we bomb it. Their army moves into barracks and bases, we bomb them. We bomb all the roads and bridges we built. We can make it possible for the Taliban to function as a govt and there's nothing they can do to stop it. We can make it an impossible for them to govern as they can do it to us. We simply do it from the air while they do it as guerrillas. So let them take power and see what good it does them.

I get it. We destroy the village in order to save it.

[Rip]

Having our troops under so much pressure that thing like this start happening is my limit.

An American soldier went on a house-to-house shooting spree in two villages in southern Afghanistan early Sunday, Afghan officials said, killing 16 people in what Afghanistan's president called an "unforgivable" crime.
NATO's International Security Assistance Force said the soldier acted alone and turned himself in to his commanders after opening fire on civilians. U.S. President Barack Obama called the killings "tragic and shocking," and offered his condolences to the Afghan people.
But Afghan President Hamid Karzai called the killings "unforgivable," and the attack is likely to further more anger at international forces following deadly riots over the burning of Qurans by U.S. troops.
"The Afghan people can with withstand a lot of pain," Prince Ali Seraj, the head of the National Coalition for Dialogue with the Tribes of Afghanistan, told CNN. "They can withstand collateral damage. They can withstand night raids. But murder is something that they totally abhor, and when that happens, they really want justice."
Haji Agha Lali, a member of the provincial council, told CNN the soldier had attacked four houses in the villages of Alokozai and Barakzai. And in a statement issued by his office, Karzai said the dead included four men, three women and nine children, with another five people wounded.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/world/asi ... ?hpt=hp_t1

We have once again ended up with our soldiers in a quagmire that will result in winning on the ground still resulting in a loss. I for one have lost faith in anything good coming from the massive amount of resources we are spending. Time to look at pulling the plug.

[Holman]

Terrible.

I guess a soldier gets executed for this, right? Or do they?

[Kraken]

Terrible.

I guess a soldier gets executed for this, right? Or do they?

Not necessarily.

Four soldiers from a Stryker brigade out of Lewis-McChord, Washington, have been sent to prison in connection with the 2010 killing of three unarmed men during patrols in Kandahar province's Maiwand district, which is just northwest of Panjwai. They were accused of forming a "kill team" that murdered Afghan civilians for sport — slaughtering victims with grenades and powerful machine guns during patrols, then dropping weapons near their bodies to make them appear to have been combatants.

I don't know if this cold-blooded mass murder (if that is indeed what happened) will have a different outcome or not.

It is hard to see our already tenuous alliance recovering from this one, coming so soon after the Koran burning. The big question is how much we can expect to accomplish in the remaining 2.5 years vs. making a hastier exit.

[Little Raven]

Oh boy.