Afghanistan finally moves into the Lose column

[Carpet_pissr]

Ironrod:

Not sure I agree with the old maxim "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...see what we tried to do with Iran and Iraq in the late 80's early 90's. That pretty much disproved that theory imo.

But on to the reason we are there....it's because the Taliban WILLINGLY HARBORED Al Qaeda, giving them a base from which to launch attacks against us. As long as they are in power, they are a threat to us vis a vis their willingness to help someone who can and does harm to us any chance they get. As much as I disagree with Bush 43 on pretty much everything...I do agree with his policy towards harboring terrorists, i.e. that those that do it will be held to account. You almost have to have that policy imo when you are dealing with an enemy that has no state or borders per se.

My personal problem with Afghanistan is that we have been there what, 9 years almost, with nothing to show for it for whatever reason. If we can pull away from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, will things get better? More troops = more success with this type of entrenched enemy? I kinda doubt it. I DO feel strongly that we need to somehow rout the Taliban and not give up though. I just can't say how to do that.

crazy rambling follows (stop reading now if you value grammar or sentence structure, or even coherent ideas)...

Other concerns....focusing so much on Afghanistan the country as a harbor for our enemy, reduces the focus on our enemy itself, no? (you made a good point...would Taliban give harbor to Al Qaeda today, if we weren't there?) I don't think anyone doubts that it's better (strategically) to take out a top Al Qaeda leader than a top Taliban leader....so are we fighting the wrong war....again? (especially if one believes that Al Qaeda has pretty much completely moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan). I hesitate to use the term "war" even. This is not war...it's something else. It's cultural conflict...a basic fundamental disagreement about how "we" should live, really, if you want to boil it down. We are so diametrically opposed to their ideals, and they to ours, that you have conflict, but not one that can be solved by earnest, highly skilled and equipped American troops, OR by poor brainwashed teenage suicide bombers. Partly a result of cross border cultural dominance (think Civ IV style cultural borders constantly expanding/encroaching ) by US movies, music and even lifestyle.

Gah...stopping now. Sheesh...I don't post for months, and now out of the woodwork, suddenly this. Carry on.

[Flatlander]

Well this could work out if we could get China involved in it. They have a severe overpopulation problem and wouldn't mind the losses as much, on a country level certainly the families of the fallen would mind quite a bit. Let them fight the war to kick out the insurgents.

I wouldn't be surprised if China is already involved in this. Some Charlie Wilson equivalent in Beijing quietly funneling old soviet style munitions to the Taliban. Just enough to keep us bogged down in the conflict. If our intelligence people suspect anything, it gets quashed by higher-ups who don't want to make waves and risk having the Chinese stop financing our debt. No evidence for this. It's just a thought. There are a lot of countries out there that are quite happy the US military is so tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq that it couldn't effectively intervene in their spheres of influence.


So, if according to Gen. Mccrystal, we face another decade or so of conflict in Afghanistan, shouldn't we start up a draft? IMHO nothing would end this war faster than it changing from "someone else's war" to the average American facing the prospect of their own sons and daughters having to fight this thing for the next ten fucking years.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiap ... index.html" target="_blank

The new revelations about the battle that engulfed Forward Operating Base Keating in Kamdesh District are a further indication of how pinned down and outmanned the troops were at the remote outpost. The base, in an eastern Afghanistan valley, was surrounded by ridge lines where the insurgents were able to fire down at U.S. and Afghan troops.

The facility had been scheduled to be closed within days, CNN has learned. The closing is part of a wider effort by the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to cede remote outposts and consolidate troops in more populated areas to better protect Afghan civilians.

[Kraken]

Maybe we already won?

Gone is the once-formidable network of camps and safe houses where Osama bin Laden and his mostly Arab operatives trained thousands of young Muslims to wage a global jihad. The group is left with fewer than 100 core fighters, according to the Obama administration, likely operating small-scale bomb-making and tactics classes conducted by trainers who travel to and from Pakistan.

40,000 more soldiers to take out those last 100 guys? The story's a little more nuanced than that -- read the whole thing. But still. You'd think 85,000 would be enough.

[pengo]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiap ... index.html

The new revelations about the battle that engulfed Forward Operating Base Keating in Kamdesh District are a further indication of how pinned down and outmanned the troops were at the remote outpost. The base, in an eastern Afghanistan valley, was surrounded by ridge lines where the insurgents were able to fire down at U.S. and Afghan troops.

The facility had been scheduled to be closed within days, CNN has learned. The closing is part of a wider effort by the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to cede remote outposts and consolidate troops in more populated areas to better protect Afghan civilians.

cool no point holding undefendable locations. KISS, consolidate and show you can deliver security to the local afghan people and then the job become easier, as they are less likely to shelter and aid the people you are fighting against (imo).

[El Guapo]

Maybe we already won?

Gone is the once-formidable network of camps and safe houses where Osama bin Laden and his mostly Arab operatives trained thousands of young Muslims to wage a global jihad. The group is left with fewer than 100 core fighters, according to the Obama administration, likely operating small-scale bomb-making and tactics classes conducted by trainers who travel to and from Pakistan.

40,000 more soldiers to take out those last 100 guys? The story's a little more nuanced than that -- read the whole thing. But still. You'd think 85,000 would be enough.

Well, it's not really about the 100 Al Qaeda fighters there at this point. I think that the concerns are that if we leave, the Taliban would take over again and: (1) could restore the safe havens to the Taliban, sooner or later, putting us back at square 1; (2) could support and provide safe havens for fundamentalist militants in Pakistan, endangering the nuclear weapons there; and (3) generally support fundamentalist militants around the Islamic world.

[Isgrimnur]

So Al Qaeda has gone from an Operations company to a Consulting firm...

[Trappin]

Some analysts are lobbying for the Fortress Kabul strategy - Coalition forces pull back and build infrastructure while growing democracy in a specific and limited area surrounding Kabul ( while attacking and thwarting Taliban zerg attacks in a large area beyond the green zone). Coalition forces then begin phase 2: The Pershing trading fort system of outposts. These fortified outposts are built in strategic locations and are a projected demonstration of democracy and how it works by providing agricultural supplies (even livestock), food, banking and medical care to people unaccustomed to western ways of trade and commerce. NGO's and other international relief agencies coordinate with the military and staff the outpost service sectors - later recruiting locals to staff and run these service centers.


The EU and NATO ( what about Aussies/NZ and Canada?) are planning to drawdown/remove forces by 2011 (or very wobbly). Fortress Kabul is one way to keep wobbly nations engaged while not having to serve in combat related duties. UN Peacekeepers in Kabul, EU working on the green zone infrastructure - while shouldering the associated costs- and US/Britain on the line and beyond.

[pengo]

sounds good

[Creepy_Smell]

<Puts on tin foil hat>

But we (shareholders) need more troops to insure the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline comes into existance!

</Keeps hat on>

Edit: We don't want Turkmenistan's natural gas/other resources going through Iran to get to the Persian Gulf for distribution.

Edit2: Don't take me too seriously. This is from the Road Warrior/Fallout(s) "Not Enough Resources to Go Round" School of geopolitics.

[Victoria Raverna]

Nice idea except that'll let most of Afghanistan to be in control of Taliban. The government that US supports will be just the government of Kabul and nearby areas. Al Qaeda can still setup training camp in Afghanistan plus they can use the "occupation" of Kabul as recruiting tool to get people to join them.

[GreenGoo]

Nice idea except that'll let most of Afghanistan to be in control of Taliban. The government that US supports will be just the government of Kabul and nearby areas. Al Qaeda can still setup training camp in Afghanistan plus they can use the "occupation" of Kabul as recruiting tool to get people to join them.

Oh well? That's a shame?

You do what you can with what you have.

[Victoria Raverna]

Nice idea except that'll let most of Afghanistan to be in control of Taliban. The government that US supports will be just the government of Kabul and nearby areas. Al Qaeda can still setup training camp in Afghanistan plus they can use the "occupation" of Kabul as recruiting tool to get people to join them.

Oh well? That's a shame?

You do what you can with what you have.

Depends on the cost/benefit analysis.

Controlling Kabul and nearby area:
Benefit
- Al Qaeda can't setup training camp in Kabul and nearby areas. While still can setup training camp in over 95% of Afghanistan.
- Taliban is not in charge of Kabul and nearby areas while still in charge of 95% of Afghanistan.
- Citizens that live inside the Kabul and nearby areas can live in relative peace. Loss of civilian lives as collateral damage from the battle between coalation forces and Taliban.

Cost
- Al Qaeda use the occupation as a recruiting tool.
- Loss of American lives.
- Monetary cost.
- Military resource cost. Units have to stay in Afghanistan and can't be used elsewhere.
- Foreign fighters come to join Taliban or Al Qaeda and then later return to their home countries to build terrorist cells.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan and Taliban in control of whole country.
Benefit
- Free up military resource.
- Save money.
- No loss of American lives.
- There is no occupation to be use as a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda.
- No incoming foreign fighters.

Cost
- Instead of being able to build training camp in more than 95% area, now Al Qaeda can build it in 100% area.
- Taliban is control of the whole Afghanistan including Kabul.
- Citizens have to live in a strict Taliban control.

[Zarathud]

Let the Taliban have the mountains and sheep. I don't see controlling those areas as falling within any realistic mission. Hasn't anyone learned from the Russian experience there?

[Trappin]

Let the Taliban have the mountains and sheep. I don't see controlling those areas as falling within any realistic mission. Hasn't anyone learned from the Russian experience there?

Amen to that.

Nice idea except that'll let most of Afghanistan to be in control of Taliban.

The Taliban currently control most of Afghanistan. US and British forces have surged into regions considered 100% hostile to coalition troops but we don't control those areas - Military units only rent land and as soon as they leave the Taliban flood back in.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bad-medicine.htm

British soldiers from 2 Rifles said they had sustained approximately twenty fatalities and injuries in the area. (More were killed and wounded in Sangin since this mission.) The situation is reminiscent of so many roads in Iraq, such as Route Irish, previously dubbed the most dangerous road in the world. The short stretch of Route Irish is situated between main bases in Baghdad. Since we never had enough troops in Iraq, the route was difficult to secure despite that it was a short stretch with bustling military traffic nestled between huge bases. A lot of people were killed and maimed on that short stretch—I have little idea of the numbers of casualties on Irish—but the total must have reached at least the hundreds.

[Kraken]

"Taliban" is becoming a catch-all for "Afghans who shoot at us". Besides the religious kooks it includes various warlords and similar factions with their own agendas.

Today's news speculates that Obama is coming to the conclusion that the Taliban are not a threat to the US (and we can't defeat them anyway).

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan does not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said yesterday.

As Obama met with advisers for three hours to discuss Pakistan, the White House said he has not decided whether to approve a proposed troop buildup in Afghanistan. But the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials yesterday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.

...

“Clearly, Al Qaeda is a threat not only to the US homeland and American interests abroad, but it has a murderous agenda,’’ one senior administration official said in an interview initiated by the White House yesterday on condition of anonymity because the strategy review has not been finished. “We want to destroy its leadership, its infrastructure and its capability.’’

The official contrasted that with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which the administration has begun to define as an indigenous group that aspires to reclaim territory and rule the country, but does not express ambitions of attacking the United States. “When the two are aligned, it’s mainly on the tactical front,’’ the official said, noting that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan.

...

The officials argued that while Al Qaeda is a foreign body, the Taliban cannot be wholly removed from Afghanistan because it is too ingrained in the country. Moreover, the forces often described as Taliban are actually an amalgamation of militants that includes local warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network or others fighting for local grievances rather than jihadist ideology.

[tjg_marantz]

Trying to eradicate the Taliban in Afghanistan is like trying to eradicate hockey fans in Canada. No matter how hard Obama or Bettman try, it won't happen.

[gameoverman]

My thoughts:

After Vietnam, no one, who matters, believes the US will stay anywhere indefinitely fighting. The US will pull out of a seemingly endless war at some point. So leaving Afghanistan will not embolden anyone- they are already emboldened in that respect.

Unless you can deliver real tangible results to the people, you can not and will not win hearts and minds. It is obvious that we can not deliver tangible results in Afghanistan. Otherwise, after all these years, we could point to all the things the average citizen over there has gained. Instead, we can only point to evidence of regression.

In my opinion, to 'win', we should have invaded there full force. That is, with all the resources we used in Iraq and Afghanistan, concentrated in Afghanistan only. Then kick the crap out of the Taliban and Al Q, without regard for capturing Bin Laden. Then install a puppet government. Then leave, proclaiming victory.

Once you are planted there for years, with no real gains to show for it, you have lost. No if, ands, or butts. It's only a question now of when we will admit defeat, which to be fair is a bitter pill to swallow.

[Pyperkub]

Trying to eradicate the Taliban in Afghanistan is like trying to eradicate hockey fans in Canada. No matter how hard Obama or Bettman try, it won't happen.

Actually, it could happen, but it can't be done by the military. In order for the pre-conditions to occur, I'd expect that the literacy rate needs to get closer to 50% or even 70%. It's currently at ~28%, according to UNICEF.

[Carpet_pissr]

I wonder what Afghanistan would look like today HAD we focused solely on that country instead of being distracted by Iraq? We probably still would have supported corrupt Karzai, which I think is a big part of the problem (at least in terms of having Afghani citizens respect/not hate us)

How many times have the Generals told us that you can't win these wars by shooting? Yes, we need troops to protect those who are trying to build up the country, but using them as an attack force is like using a flamethrower against a mouse infestation problem. It's the wrong tool for the job.

[gameoverman]

Karzai government or no Karzai government, I think the only way a win was possible was to go in and get out quick. The idea being to get out quick enough that it would happen before something like a Taliban resurgence or Karzai corruption became obvious. That way, those problems could be credibly blamed on a weak Afghan military or corrupt Afghan officials as opposed to failed US policy or effort.

[Pyperkub]

Once again, define the objectives. In 2001/2002 the goals were to:

1. Get Osama and kill terrorists
2. Destroy the terrorist training camps and make sure they don't come back.

Do this at any cost

What are the objectives now, and how much more will we spend? It is 8 years later, AQ has changed, Pakistan has changed as has the US.

As to buying off the Taliban, as Heinlein used to say - "A good politician is defined as one who stays bought". Will they stay bought, and what do we do if they don't?

[pengo]

So the US left Vietnam and the commies took over the country, how is that country doing now? Could you say if the US was to leave Afghanistan to the "Taliban" it will turn out like Vietnam? As has been posted here it seems the "Taliban" just want to rule their own country (brutually) and don't care about the infidel americans and bringing jihad to America. I guess now that they know the lengths the US will go to (ie invade their country) they might not be so ready to shelter AQ? Tho I think the Taliban are no more able to prevent AQ using remote parts of Afghanistan than the Americans are.

[Victoria Raverna]

Once again, define the objectives. In 2001/2002 the goals were to:

1. Get Osama and kill terrorists
2. Destroy the terrorist training camps and make sure they don't come back.

Do this at any cost

What are the objectives now, and how much more will we spend? It is 8 years later, AQ has changed, Pakistan has changed as has the US.

As to buying off the Taliban, as Heinlein used to say - "A good politician is defined as one who stays bought". Will they stay bought, and what do we do if they don't?

They'll stay bought because US should be able to pay more than Al Qaeda.

[Grundbegriff]

Krauthammer describes the unpainted corner well.

[Kraken]

Taliban not the main Afghan enemy

And so the change in conceptualizing this war seems to be complete. Its strategy consequences remain to be seen. But it looks like sending in the jawas is going to be part of it.

[Holman]

No, that's the guy from Borderlands.

[El Guapo]

There's a great five-part series in the NY Times by a reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban and held for about 7.5 months, here. It's definitely worth reading - very gripping and interesting about the conditions in Afghanistan and tribal Pakistan. Doesn't really have a political angle to it.

[pengo]

God, I just finished watch The Killing Fields.. and I can't believe its the same dogma thats going on with Iraq/Afghanistan.. geez has the US govt learnt nothing from Vietnam/Cambodia etc?

There's a great five-part series in the NY Times by a reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban and held for about 7.5 months, here. It's definitely worth reading - very gripping and interesting about the conditions in Afghanistan and tribal Pakistan. Doesn't really have a political angle to it.

Whats up with NY times reporters? It was a NY times reporter that the Killing Fields movie was about (him and his Cambodian friend). I'm reading the ny times article you linked to, great read and man I can draw paralells to the Khmer Rouge and Taliban in some instances.

Also its interesting to read that the ny times reporter says the taliban now wants to help AQ spread their islam to the rest of the world. So I guess it may not be a good thing to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban as they will not definately be assisting AQ against the US?

It doesn't help matters that the areas the Taliban are secure in they have better infrastructure than places occupied by the NATO forces. I guess guirella warfare really is the counter to an (large?) organised armed force..

[Holman]

There's a great five-part series in the NY Times by a reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban and held for about 7.5 months, here. It's definitely worth reading - very gripping and interesting about the conditions in Afghanistan and tribal Pakistan. Doesn't really have a political angle to it.

Whats up with NY times reporters? It was a NY times reporter that the Killing Fields movie was about (him and his Cambodian friend). I'm reading the ny times article you linked to, great read and man I can draw paralells to the Khmer Rouge and Taliban in some instances.

It's nice that some reporters aren't content to sit around on their butts in the Green Zone.

If anyone hasn't read the series, it's a pretty amazing story. The reporter seems eminently sane, despite the risks he knowingly ran. It's kind of a counterpoint to something like My War Gone By, I Miss It So (the difference being the lack of heroin).

[The Preacher]

God, I just finished watch The Killing Fields.. and I can't believe its the same dogma thats going on with Iraq/Afghanistan.. geez has the US govt learnt nothing from Vietnam/Cambodia etc?

On the flip side, I think the public is far too willing to over-extrapolate the lessons learned in Vietnam into incomparable situations.

edit: I should add that I don't think we can pacify a nation like Afghanistan. But we haven't seen even remotely the level of casualties we suffered in Vietnam, nor have we suffered even a fraction of the Soviets deaths in Afghanistan. It's easy to label it "a Vietnam quagmire" but the reality is that this is (still?) more of a mud patch than the La Brea tar pit that was Vietnam.

[helot2000]

God, I just finished watch The Killing Fields.. and I can't believe its the same dogma thats going on with Iraq/Afghanistan.. geez has the US govt learnt nothing from Vietnam/Cambodia etc?

On the flip side, I think the public is far too willing to over-extrapolate the lessons learned in Vietnam into incomparable situations.

Lessons Learned in Vietnam? I'm pretty sure that 35 years and about 1,000 books later, we can't collectively agree on what lessons we learned in Vietnam. For the Rightward leaning, the lessons learned would include that we could have won if only we had seen the mission through. It would also include a belief that journalists demoralized the homefront and lost the war. For the Leftward leaning, lessons learned would be that we never should have been there and that our Government lied to us so you can't trust them.

One of my favorite Poly Sci classes was on the Vietnam war and I vividly remember my profs last lesson. He was a Navy pilot who flew during the war and he finished the semester by asking "What did we learn from Vietnam?" He paused and said we should never send American boys to fight and die for the freedom of people who aren't willing to fight and die for it themselves.

That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

[The Preacher]

God, I just finished watch The Killing Fields.. and I can't believe its the same dogma thats going on with Iraq/Afghanistan.. geez has the US govt learnt nothing from Vietnam/Cambodia etc?

On the flip side, I think the public is far too willing to over-extrapolate the lessons learned in Vietnam into incomparable situations.

Lessons Learned in Vietnam? I'm pretty sure that 35 years and about 1,000 books later, we can't collectively agree on what lessons we learned in Vietnam. For the Rightward leaning, the lessons learned would include that we could have won if only we had seen the mission through. It would also include a belief that journalists demoralized the homefront and lost the war. For the Leftward leaning, lessons learned would be that we never should have been there and that our Government lied to us so you can't trust them.

One of my favorite Poly Sci classes was on the Vietnam war and I vividly remember my profs last lesson. He was a Navy pilot who flew during the war and he finished the semester by asking "What did we learn from Vietnam?" He paused and said we should never send American boys to fight and die for the freedom of people who aren't willing to fight and die for it themselves.

That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

Seems overly simplistic to me.

Such a statement implies we should let an awful lot of innocent people die. I personally don't believe we should allow the Hutus to butcher the Tutsis, the innocents in Somalia and Darfur to be slaughtered, or watch idly as the the Mladic's of the world massacre people like the Bosniaks.

But, more to the point of this thread, we are there to prevent our own deaths. We believe that there is risk of the Taliban supporting terrorist organizations. We also believe that instability between Afghanistan and Pakistan creates significant risks, not just to us, but to the world as a whole. So, we are willing to put people there because our own necks are on the line. That seems quite differentiated from Iraq, which also isn't/wasn't a Vietnam quagmire.

[Kraken]

One of my favorite Poly Sci classes was on the Vietnam war and I vividly remember my profs last lesson. He was a Navy pilot who flew during the war and he finished the semester by asking "What did we learn from Vietnam?" He paused and said we should never send American boys to fight and die for the freedom of people who aren't willing to fight and die for it themselves.

That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

As I understand it many Afghans are fighting for freedom from corrupt and ineffective central authority, which we've been fighting to impose on them. If our mission has anything to do with freedom at all, it seems to be curtailing it.

[Holman]

One of my favorite Poly Sci classes was on the Vietnam war and I vividly remember my profs last lesson. He was a Navy pilot who flew during the war and he finished the semester by asking "What did we learn from Vietnam?" He paused and said we should never send American boys to fight and die for the freedom of people who aren't willing to fight and die for it themselves.

That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

As I understand it many Afghans are fighting for freedom from corrupt and ineffective central authority, which we've been fighting to impose on them. If our mission has anything to do with freedom at all, it seems to be curtailing it.

I've heard a lot about the tribal factionalism and the generally splintered society, but "fighting for freedom from corruption" doesn't quite seem to catch it. It's more like "fighting for my gang's brand of corruption vs. their gang's brand of corruption."

[Holman]

I find myself Hawkier and Hawkier on Afghanistan, and I'm trying to sort out whether I'm deluded.

Here are the tenets that make me believe this is a war that needs to be won decisively:

1) The Taliban (and any likely AQ-inspired successors to the Taliban, in Afghanistan or beyond) embody a cultural movement aimed at reshaping societies in ways that are anathema to Western pluralism, freedom, and individualism. This might be acceptable for a time in a small, self-contained state, but the demonstrated Taliban aim of spreading the ideology beyond its past boundaries makes conflict inevitable if we take our values seriously. While we can't afford to go around changing every regime we don't like, this is a case of casus belli against a movement with clear intentions of continued terrorism.

2) The Taliban (and any likely etc.) are—in principle—a worse threat to Western ways and values than the Soviet Union ever was. For all the proxy fighting and posturing that went on during the Cold War, it was understood that everyone had everything to gain from mutual accommodation and well-marked spheres of influence. Despite the tough talk on both sides, few long-term policy makers in either camp felt that direct confrontation was desirable. Taliban ideology, so far, appears to be far more absolute than Soviet-style communism.

3) As much as we might dismiss the Taliban as a direct threat (beyond isolated acts of terrorism) to Europe and the Americas, the threat to South Asian stability is very serious. In many ways the war in Afghanistan is already a proxy war for Pakistan. A nuclear-armed, Islamic fundamentalist Pakistan would destabilize a huge chunk of the globe that hasn’t otherwise been a primary source of worry for the US.

4) The weight of radical religion is almost beyond imagining. While competing economic theories are one thing, the power of religious belief to motivate action, endurance, and sacrifice is immeasurable. Here is an enemy whose strength comes from faith (how many suicide bombers did communism produce?), and the West must exert every effort to strengthen moderate Islam against radical fundamentalist Islam. The War on Terror will succeed or fail not as a war but as a grand effort at moderate nation building.

And that’s how victory is defined: moderates ascendant over radical fundamentalists. I’m trying to avoid a Robert Kaplan-style Prussian realism; I still believe it’s possible to get a better world out of all of this. Of course, I can't see a way to moderate nation building in Afghanistan that doesn't also require military victory.

I can also think of a few counter-arguments to my tenets above. The most damaging (were it demonstrated) would be the contention that the “Taliban” enemy is not motivated by religious fervor but by straight-up nationalism and tribalism. This is similar to the argument that the Viet Cong were always more dedicated to Vietnamese independence than to principles of Marxism. I don’t have a good way of assessing this, but what I read inclines me towards the view that this is a war of values, not of nations. Is that just Bush (and now Obama) propaganda? Does the enemy in Afghanistan consist of fanatical Fedayeen assassins, or are they just farmers picking up Kalashnikovs against the Western invader?

Would love to hear arguments.

[helot2000]

One of my favorite Poly Sci classes was on the Vietnam war and I vividly remember my profs last lesson. He was a Navy pilot who flew during the war and he finished the semester by asking "What did we learn from Vietnam?" He paused and said we should never send American boys to fight and die for the freedom of people who aren't willing to fight and die for it themselves.

That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

Seems overly simplistic to me.

It's a logical conclusion to draw in light of the ARVN under-performing at every turn and the ultimate failure of Vietnamization. The disenchantment of the South Vietnamese with the rampant corruption and incompetence of their political leaders meant that they were not motivated to fight and die for their freedom. The Afghanistanization of this war is going to be similarly hobbled by the rampant corruption and incompetence of Karzai and Co. I hope he loses the runoff election but that's not likely.

Such a statement implies we should let an awful lot of innocent people die. I personally don't believe we should allow the Hutus to butcher the Tutsis, the innocents in Somalia and Darfur to be slaughtered, or watch idly as the the Mladic's of the world massacre people like the Bosniaks.

Would you insert the US Army in every corner of the globe that finds innocent people dying? If so, we're going to be awfully busy. I think about the lessons of Mogadishu and the hazards of putting boots on the ground in humanitarian efforts. Our armed forces are overstretched and undermanned in the wars we currently have so humanitarian projects are off the table in any case.

But, more to the point of this thread, we are there to prevent our own deaths. We believe that there is risk of the Taliban supporting terrorist organizations. We also believe that instability between Afghanistan and Pakistan creates significant risks, not just to us, but to the world as a whole. So, we are willing to put people there because our own necks are on the line. That seems quite differentiated from Iraq, which also isn't/wasn't a Vietnam quagmire.

This is an argument I can buy. The problem is, after 8 years, we don't have much to show for our efforts.

[Kraken]

One of my favorite Poly Sci classes was on the Vietnam war and I vividly remember my profs last lesson. He was a Navy pilot who flew during the war and he finished the semester by asking "What did we learn from Vietnam?" He paused and said we should never send American boys to fight and die for the freedom of people who aren't willing to fight and die for it themselves.

That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

As I understand it many Afghans are fighting for freedom from corrupt and ineffective central authority, which we've been fighting to impose on them. If our mission has anything to do with freedom at all, it seems to be curtailing it.

I've heard a lot about the tribal factionalism and the generally splintered society, but "fighting for freedom from corruption" doesn't quite seem to catch it. It's more like "fighting for my gang's brand of corruption vs. their gang's brand of corruption."

True that there are no "good guys" from the Western perspective in Afg, I was just trying to put the situation into the context of the quote.

2) The Taliban (and any likely etc.) are—in principle—a worse threat to Western ways and values than the Soviet Union ever was.

Well, except for all the nukes and bombers and submarines and stuff. The Taliban are not even remotely a military threat unless we insist on rooting them out of their own land. But I understand your point "in principle". The Russians were/are more like us than unlike us, while the Taliban oppose our way of life.

[pengo]

I've read that if the US played isolationist during WW2, the world would be a split of Nazi, Japanese Imperialism and Soviet Communism. So an isolationist policy then would not be a good thing. But I wonder, if playing an isolationist policy would be better in the current situation? If the Taliban are happy to be left to rule their own country the way they want without the meddling by the US (giving them cause to hate on the US) would the US would be better off? I guess no, as they weren't messing around in Afghanistan pre 9/11 (ie left the Taliban to their own devices which allowd AQ to setup camp there).

The NY times article talks about how the US mistakes with Gitmo, Abu Gharib (ie occupations and muslims abroad) et al gives them cause to strive for the downfall of the US. I just wonder if the US invaded Afghanistan and kicked out Al Queda but left the Taliban in charge if they would be better off. I guess its kinda like Desert Storm with leaving Saddam in charge (and situations in South America). Sure I wouldn't want to live in that country but Saddam didn't bring down the towers nor was harbouring desires for the downfall of the US? I wonder if an appeasement policy on Saddam would have worked out better rather than sanctions which really only hurt the Iraqis and not the Saddam regieme. Over time would Iraq turn into a more benevolent dictatorship? Maybe there was a reason for why Saddam was so brutal, you have to be the meanest dog to keep the other dogs in check? As the Middle east to me seems totally hardcore with all the radicals and fanaticals there. Is this real politik that people talk about? Kinda feels like making deals with the devil tho.

Also with Vietnam, its under communist rule and doing ok now? I've had colleagues that have visited Cambodia and Vietnam and they say on the ground it looks "ok", don't get me wrong its still underdeveloped but its not like it was (e.g. Year 0 with Khmer Rouge). I understand there are still human rights violations, but there is no threat to the US "at least" and westerners are able to holiday there, sure its not 100% safe like back "at home" but its not like holidaying in say Yemen or Waziristan.

I don't have the answers, and I kinda think no matter what the US and its allies do its a "damned if you do damned if you don't".

[Holman]

2) The Taliban (and any likely etc.) are—in principle—a worse threat to Western ways and values than the Soviet Union ever was.

Well, except for all the nukes and bombers and submarines and stuff. The Taliban are not even remotely a military threat unless we insist on rooting them out of their own land. But I understand your point "in principle". The Russians were/are more like us than unlike us, while the Taliban oppose our way of life.

Oh, I know they can't conquer the West. But it seems like a Taliban-dominated sphere would continue to produce active terrorists for export, and lots of them. A Soviet-dominated sphere only produces inferior industrial products (plus misery for internal consumption).

It's a choice of analogies. Are the Taliban more like North Korea (evil but insular) or like the Barbary Pirates (evil and predatory)? I don't think there's a good case to be made that they aren't evil at all.