Afghanistan finally moves into the Lose column

[The Preacher]

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.

It sounds like there really is more to it than just someone's willingness to die for a cause. Perhaps your Navy pilot wasn't as right as you say. In addition to adding concepts like political competence and corruption to this actual multivariate analysis, perhaps there are also questions about the means in which we execute the war, the support given to the opposing force by other superpowers may play a factor. These thoughts just pop into my head but I'm no ex-Navy political science professor

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.

I am not the one claiming that force deployment is a univariate analysis. The degree to which innocents are being slaughtered, in my opinion, is a significant factor in determining what we should do. But you're right, there are others. Our current deployments, the ability and willingness of other nations to assist, and our likely casualty levels are some other variables to consider.

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.

Al Qaeda support system seems to be in a shambles compared to 8 years ago. The Taliban, while in resurgence, is still not even remotely at the power level it used to be. Are we done? I don't know because I'm not sure what the ultimate goal really is anymore. But I wouldn't say we don't have anything to show for the last 8 years.

[Kraken]

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.

Saddam was our creature throughout the 1980s -- our counterweight to Iran, which was in the Soviet camp. When Saddam outlived the Cold War he also outlived most of his usefulness, and his ambitions for regional hegemony became inconvenient. The first war was just a misunderstanding:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

Oops.

As for the second war, Bush the Lesser wanted to conquer an oil state for his own reasons (well, Dick Cheney's reasons) and Saddam was easy to vilify. Bush also had some personal grudge against Saddam. There was no objective reason to take him out; we just wanted his country.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Afghanistan, though. Iraq was only ever a sideshow.

[Kraken]

It looks like the answer to the titular question will be "draw".

I presume that John Kerry is floating a trial balloon for the administration when he says:

the United States should radically lower its expectations for Afghanistan. In his most comprehensive remarks yet on his view of the way forward in Afghanistan, Kerry said there are no good options, but that transferring responsibility to an Afghan government that is capable of battling the Taliban offers the best chance for US troops to be able to come home.

“Achieving our goals does not require us to build a flawless democracy, defeat the Taliban in every corner of the country, or create a modern economy,’’ Kerry said. “What we’re talking about is ‘good-enough’ governance, basic sustainable economic development, and Afghan security forces capable enough that we can draw down our forces.’’

So how many troops should it take to fight to a draw? The AP points out that "There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels...." This presumes that one Afghan security troop is equivalent to one Taliban fighter. The Afghan army is fighting to keep a corrupt puppet government in power while the Taliban are fighting invading infidels. Kind of a motivation gap there.

Best guess says Obama will split the baby in half and send 20,000 more. That ought to do it.

[Holman]

12:1 eh?

I guess one big asset held by the Taliban is the home field advantage. We're fighting them in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world, and they've been there all their lives.

Another is Pakistan. The Taliban are able to use it as a base of supply, training, and recuperation in ways similar to North Vietnam in the VN war. The difference is that, in this case, North Vietnam is on our side and apparently interested in seeing the VC wiped out too.

Taking the Vietnam analogy further, Afghanistan seems to offer us all kinds of advantages we lacked back then: a superbly equipped volunteer US military, the military support of some European allies, a compliant Pakistan next door, and the lack of a rival superpower backing the enemy. So why isn't it working? Is it just that the current Afghan regime is too corrupt and divisive to hold the country together? Is it that we are not merely the foreigner but also the Infidel?

[helot2000]

Is it that we are not merely the foreigner but also the Infidel?

Pretty much.

A crowd of around 1,000 demonstrators, mainly university students, marched through the streets of Kabul before massing in front of the national parliament building and hurling stones at riot police as well as an armoured vehicle which blocked them from going down one street. The demonstrators, almost all men, chanted: ‘Death to America, death to Jews and Christians!’ as they burned an effigy of Obama and a United States flag.

‘We have gathered here to express our disgust towards the American troops and their act of burning and insulting our holy book of Quran,’ Ihsanullah Hakimi, one of the demonstrators, told AFP.

All you have to do is start a rumor that we disrespected the Quran and you get university students in the capital rioting. If we can't win the hearts and minds of the educated city youth, it'll be slow going out in the sticks. This pic from the demonstration says it nicely...

[Holman]

Is it that we are not merely the foreigner but also the Infidel?

Pretty much.

A crowd of around 1,000 demonstrators, mainly university students, marched through the streets of Kabul before massing in front of the national parliament building and hurling stones at riot police as well as an armoured vehicle which blocked them from going down one street. The demonstrators, almost all men, chanted: ‘Death to America, death to Jews and Christians!’ as they burned an effigy of Obama and a United States flag.

‘We have gathered here to express our disgust towards the American troops and their act of burning and insulting our holy book of Quran,’ Ihsanullah Hakimi, one of the demonstrators, told AFP.

All you have to do is start a rumor that we disrespected the Quran and you get university students in the capital rioting. If we can't win the hearts and minds of the educated city youth, it'll be slow going out in the sticks. This pic from the demonstration says it nicely...

In a city of more than 2.5 million, is 1,000 demonstrators really much of a rally? The numbers don't seem enough to reflect the whole class of educated youth. I'm sure there are fiercely religious factions on campus, but are they the majority?

[helot2000]

I can't discount the possibility that it might have been Taliban Rush Week. Regardless, we are still plagued by the fact that we are infidels.

[Holman]

I'm no Talibanologist, but it's notable how few of the young men in that photo have beards.

Dunno.

[Carpet_pissr]

They are only semi Taliban.

[pengo]

I notice no women in that picture or are they in the hut of honour?

[gameoverman]

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.

I don't see how anyone could really expect to sell that 'lesson' to anyone.

The French spent how much time and troops there? They got nowhere. We spent how many years and had how many hundreds of thousands of troops there and got nowhere. But the people at home(protesters and journalists) lost the war for us? C'mon!

People just can't bring themselves to admit that sometimes it's just not winnable, at least not in the way we see 'win'. Sometimes it doesn't matter how kickass of a military you have, or how dedicated you are to winning, or how willing you are to stick it out and stay. Sometimes it's out of your hands.

Every time I see a new declaration that this last month was the deadliest for US forces in Afghanistan, even after we've been there 8 years, I have to wonder is this one of those times. I see nothing to say that it isn't.

[Holman]

New piece on Slate.com about what success in Afghanistan might look like. The answer is "Bangladesh": once a mess, now relatively stable, but nothing close to the prosperous, democratic paradise we were told to expect in a regime-changed Iraq.

[helot2000]

Here's an interesting story about a Marine turned reconstruction expert who resigned from the administration last week.

A retired Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul Province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official to publicly resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe was simply fueling the insurgency.

Korengal and other areas, he said, taught him "how localized the insurgency was. I didn't realize that a group in this valley here has no connection with an insurgent group 2 kilometers away." Hundreds, maybe thousands, of groups across Afghanistan, he decided, had few ideological ties to the Taliban but took its money to fight the foreign intruders and maintain their own local power bases. "That's really what kind of shook me," he said. "I thought it was more nationalistic. But it's localism. I would call it valley-ism."

msduncan suggested early on that we buy off the insurgency, just like we bought off the Sunnis in Iraq. This is probably our best bet as we've already recognized that we can't possibly kill them all. The problem (or potential?) is that we would have to buy off one Pashtun tribe at a time. And like the Sunnis, once the money stops flowing, the "love" for their government fades and the guns 'n bombs come back out.

In Vietnam, our strategy of occupation and containment meant we could never realistically expect more than a draw. For good reasons, we couldn't invade N. Vietnam and destroy our enemies ability and will to fight. We've pursued a similar strategy of occupation and containment in Afghanistan. The government we prop up is corrupt and unpopular. The war pits the urban, secular, and educated against the rural, and illiterate. Our real enemy sits across a border we don't dare cross except with air strikes. In light of all this, can we realistically expect better than a draw?

From Matthew Hoh's resignation letter,

If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. "

Ouch.

[ydejin]

Video from BBC Embed with US 501 Parachute Regiment.

[Kraken]

So the POTUS goes on the TV in about an hour to sell us on his plan. Advance word says that the liberals won't like it, but that the rally-round-the-flag effect will temporarily bump up his influence on other initiatives (like health care reform).

I'm going to the bar tonight. I trust you guys to criticize Obama for me.

[Creepy_Smell]

So the POTUS goes on the TV in about an hour to sell us on his plan. Advance word says that the liberals won't like it, but that the rally-round-the-flag effect will temporarily bump up his influence on other initiatives (like health care reform).

I'm going to the bar tonight. I trust you guys to criticize Obama for me.

Response 1: He didn't pull out!! Gruff Gruff Gruff!!

Response 2: Not enough troops!! Gruff Gruff Gruff!!

[Kraken]

Yeah, that policy speech didn't exactly set anyone's heart aflutter, did it? Something for everyone to dislike. Well, at least now we have some sort of rough metric for answering this thread's title.

Ultimately it's going to come down to reforming or replacing the Maliki government. We can't possibly win if we have to keep flogging that horse to the finish line.

[Carpet_pissr]

Helot: Hearing Hoh's interview on NPR made me come down firm on his side on this issue, and I have seen it reiterated by others since, including a Soviet general that was in charge of Afgahnistan during their VERY similar situation. He basically said we are repeating history. There is no allegiance to an idea of nationalism, just to their very VERY local tribe.

I feel we are making a big mistake here, and not sure what we are expecting to accomplish by the end of the withdrawal?

A troop increase will only lead to more resistance and more ill will according to some very convincing reports I have read. What if instead of killing so called rebels (says the Imperial citizen), we try to rebuild some of the infrastructure? I'm seriously surprised that Obama of all people seems to not be heeding history's lesson for this region. Hell, it's even modern history!

Very disappointed here.

[Kraken]

I don't think things are getting any better.

Maliki is hardly hiding his disdain for the Americans, and has threatened to join the Taliban himself.

Pakistan's main spy agency is supporting the Afghan Taliban. These are, like, our allies.

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan’s main spy agency continues to arm and train the Taliban and is even represented on the group’s leadership council despite US pressure to sever ties and billions in aid to combat the militants, said a research report released yesterday.

The findings could heighten tension between the two countries and raise further questions about US success in Afghanistan because Pakistani cooperation is seen as key to defeating the Taliban, which seized power in Kabul in the 1990s with Islamabad’s support.

...

“Pakistan’s apparent involvement in a double-game of this scale could have major geopolitical implications and could even provoke US countermeasures,’’ said the report, which was based on interviews with Taliban commanders, former Taliban officials, Western diplomats, and many others.

“Without a change in Pakistani behavior it will be difficult, if not impossible, for international forces and the Afghan government to make progress against the insurgency,’’ said the report, written by Matt Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Well, maybe this is a good thing, right?: Vast deposits of mineral wealth found in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the US officials believe.

...

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing jobs that could distract from generations of war.

Maybe not. Maybe it's just something new to fight over.

nstead of bringing peace, the mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts.

...

Another complication is the environment. Because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry, it has little history of environmental protection.

Well, at least we've got 30,000 more troops there to kick butts and take names, right? Well, about that....

n the months leading up to June, as tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers landed in Afghanistan, all the talk was about Kandahar. It’s a big city (there are about a million people in and around it), and the plan was to win it back from the brutish, nasty, and resurgent Taliban. As we’ve said before, the stakes are as high as ever for President Obama, who’s made the campaign for Afghanistan all his. As we wrote last week, the battle for Kandahar would be the turning point of the war.

Except that now, umm, there is no war in Kandahar. Commanders and officials from the U.S., NATO, and the Afghan military are playing down any notion that they were taking on the Taliban in the south of the country with guns a-blazing. “It’s not going to be an aggressive military campaign,” an American official told The New York Times. “They’ve looked at it and realized it wouldn’t work.” Others say that there was never an “offensive” in the plans. (But there was certainly an offensive in the neighboring hamlet of Marja.) Instead, winning back the opium-filled south now depends on a “civilian surge” of aid, agricultural, and diplomatic experts. The tens of thousands of troops who are armed to the gills will, as the reporting goes, now play second fiddle, supporting them.

Yeah, that's going to go well....

Seriously, what exactly is our objective there? The government that we're backing is openly corrupt and uncooperative. Our erstwhile allies are arming our enemies. All parties seem to be biding their time until the Americans pack up and go home as early as next year, according to our president.

I still don't know what "winning" would entail, but I don't think we have much chance of doing it.

[Holman]

Gorbachev: Afghanistan is America's Afghanistan.

[GreenGoo]

Gorbachev: Afghanistan is America's Afghanistan.

[Kraken]

This would be a good time to kill Mehsud again.

[Kraken]

Big news from Wikileaks today. None of the revelations are new, but the documentation is.

LONDON --The release of some 91,000 secret U.S. military documents on the Afghanistan war is just the beginning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised Monday, adding that he still has thousands more Afghan files to post online.

The White House, Britain and Pakistan have all condemned the online whistle-blowing group's release Sunday of the classified documents, one of the largest unauthorized disclosures in military history. The Afghan government in Kabul said it was "shocked" at the release but insisted most of the information was not new.

The documents cover some known aspects of the troubled nine-year conflict: U.S. special operations forces have targeted militants without trial, Afghans have been killed by accident, and U.S. officials have been infuriated by alleged Pakistani intelligence cooperation with the very insurgent groups bent on killing Americans.

Still, they also included unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and covert operations against Taliban figures.

Assange told reporters in London that what's been reported so far on the leaked documents has "only scratched the surface" and said some 15,000 files on Afghanistan are still being vetted by his organization.

He said he believed that "thousands" of U.S. attacks in Afghanistan could be investigated for evidence of war crimes, although he acknowledged that such claims would have to be tested in court.

...

The Times says the "raw intelligence assessments" by lower level military officers suggest that Pakistan "allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."

The Guardian, however, interpreted the documents differently, saying they "fail to provide a convincing smoking gun" for complicity between the Pakistan intelligence services and the Taliban.

The leaked records include detailed descriptions of raids carried out by a secretive U.S. special operations unit called Task Force 373 against what U.S. officials considered high-value insurgent and terrorist targets. Some of the raids resulted in unintended killings of Afghan civilians, according to the documentation.

During the targeting and killing of Libyan fighter Abu Laith al-Libi, described in the documents as a senior al-Qaida military commander, the death tally was reported as six enemy fighters and seven noncombatants -- all children.

The Obama administration is quick to point out that virtually all of the documents date to the Bush administration and don't reflect today's reality.

[Pyperkub]

The Obama administration is quick to point out that virtually all of the documents date to the Bush administration and don't reflect today's reality.

These were the quotes that I saw: (and AFAIK, the documents detail stuff from 2004-Dec. 2009)

An administration official went further in an e-mail to reporters: “I don’t think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan. In fact, we’ve said as much repeatedly and on the record. …

“The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy.”

Sounds fine, right up until this:

The official added: “t’s worth noting that WikiLeaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan."

I think 'criticizes' is a more appropriate descriptions than 'opposes'. Unless of course, US Policy in Afghanistan is to cover everything up...

[Kraken]

More evidence that a negotiated peace is in the works

US-led forces are aiding the movement of senior Taliban leaders to attend initial peace talks in Kabul, the clearest indication of US support for high-level discussions aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan, senior NATO and Obama administration officials said.

Given the Taliban history of religious absolutism, it's hard for me to imagine them participating in a secular government. I also have trouble conceiving of how they can assure the US that their days of supporting terrorists are over. But the Taliban are not a unified organization; presumably we're not talking to the hardline core, who would fight on regardless.

It's nice to think that there might be a way out within the near future that lets all sides declare victory.

[Grifman]

Just like Vietnam, the war can never be won as long as the enemy has a safe haven over the border whereby they can control the pace of operations. If they ever face too much pressure, they simply withdraw to safety until they can rebuild/restock their forces. We should have put the same amount of pressure on Pakistan over this issue as we did when we initially attacked Afghanistan, when they were basically told, help us or else. Now I'm afraid it's too late.

[dbt1949]

Nothing will ever change there. If we were to completely annihilate the Taliban and bin Laden (We won't but for arguments sake) then the warlords would all be fighting each other again, assuming they've stopped now.
The world just needs to put a big fence around it with gates here and there saying "Enter at your own risk". Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate

[Quaro]

More evidence that a negotiated peace is in the works

US-led forces are aiding the movement of senior Taliban leaders to attend initial peace talks in Kabul, the clearest indication of US support for high-level discussions aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan, senior NATO and Obama administration officials said.

Given the Taliban history of religious absolutism, it's hard for me to imagine them participating in a secular government. I also have trouble conceiving of how they can assure the US that their days of supporting terrorists are over. But the Taliban are not a unified organization; presumably we're not talking to the hardline core, who would fight on regardless.

It's nice to think that there might be a way out within the near future that lets all sides declare victory.

It's the only way the war can possibly end. I'm encourged to see those rumors.

Some crazy reporter actually embedded himself with the Taliban somewhat recently: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242" target="_blank -- fascinating. There's a convoy ambush from their point of view.

There's also some insight into the Taliban as a government (wandering judge etc).

[Kraken]

Is it time to declare victory? A chorus of voices says Yes.

Fewer than 100 Al Qaeda fighters are believed to remain in the country, according to CIA assessments, and bin Laden’s death is the most dramatic illustration of how attacks have decimated the terrorist group’s leadership.

“With Al Qaeda largely displaced from the country, but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost, especially given current fiscal constraints,’’ Senator Richard G. Lugar, an influential Republican voice on foreign policy for decades, said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday.

...

[Off the record, some in the administration spoke of a dramatic shift, according to the Washington Post.]

[The Obama administration is seeking to use the killing of Osama bin Laden to accelerate a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and hasten the end of the Afghanistan war, according to US officials involved in war policy, the paper reported.]

[Administration officials think it could now be easier for the reclusive leader of the largest Taliban faction, Mohammad Omar, to break his group’s alliance with Al Qaeda, a key US requirement for any peace deal. They also think that bin Laden’s death could make peace talks a more palatable outcome for Americans and insulate Obama from criticism that his administration would be negotiating with terrorists, the story said.]

[“Bin Laden’s death is the beginning of the end game in Afghanistan,’’ the article quoted a senior administration as saying. “It changes everything.’’]

...

Bin Laden’s death and the dispersal of his terrorist network from Afghanistan are expected to forge antiwar alliances among unlikely partners. Representative Ron Paul, conservative Republican from Texas, and Representative Barney Frank, liberal Democrat of Newton, have jointly called for troops to be pulled from Afghanistan as part of a global effort to reduce US missions and cut costs.

“You’ll see everybody from the libertarians like Rand and Ron Paul to even the old gray beards like Lugar beginning to express that we’ve done this for 10 years, it’s a bottomless pit, we can’t afford to keep doing it, and this is a good occasion to start to withdraw,’’ said Robert L. Borosage, codirector of Campaign for America’s Future, a Washington group that promotes liberal causes.

...

IMO this is as close as we are ever going to come to "winning". We can never eradicate the Taliban militarily; the best we can hope for there is to pressure them into a favorable negotiated peace. The Kharzai government is never going to build a modern, prosperous state; they are a hive of scum and villainy. The best we can hope for is a nominally secular reconciliation government that doesn't oppress women too brutally and that does not welcome terrorist groups. Hell, maybe the Taliban and Kharzai will keep each other in check.

I would love to see this war end within the next year or so. You?

[Freezer-TPF-]

That sounds very encouraging. Afghanistan has been way over on the wrong side of the CBA scale for a long time now.

[Isgrimnur]

I would love to see it end in the next year, but that's not going to happen. It's going to take longer than that to hand over power. There are still rogue/sleeper elements inside the military and police that are waiting for the time to strike. There are still ongoing attacks. If we don't make sure that something fills the power vacuum, it's going to turn into a civil war once we leave. And we need to make sure that they no longer seek to externalize their conflicts through terrorist action on other countries.

This summer will tell the tale of how much the Taliban and al Qaeda want to fight. SecDef Gates said last month that this year is going to be critical to the future of our forces in the area.

My own view is that this year is a critical year. If we can prevent them this year from retaking the areas that we have taken away from them, and we can continue to expand the security bubble, I think it's possible that by the end of this year we will have turned a corner just because of the Taliban being driven out, and, more importantly, kept out. But that's more months into the future than it is -- than it is weeks.

[Kraken]

I would love to see it end in the next year, but that's not going to happen.

By "end", I don't mean that all of our troops will be home -- rather, that a peace agreement/cease fire will be signed and a phased withdrawal defined. Actually leaving would no doubt take another year or two beyond that.

I don't think that's impossible. Congress is sick of throwing money down this rathole and the White House would love to "win" the war during the campaign season. I'm glad that the prospect is being openly discussed in both parties. Now if only the Talib will meet us halfway....

[Grifman]

Now if only the Talib will meet us halfway....

They have little reason to. All they have to do is outlast the US, just like North Vietnam did, then move in for the kill. I see no incentive for them to come to the table as long as they have willing fighters (doesn't appear to be a shortage of them) and a place to hide in Pakistan. If we could put real pressure on them there, we'd have a chance but that's not going to happen.

Aside - One thing I've never understood is Karzai. For someone who's govt doesn't stand a chance in hell of lasting without US support, he surely bites the hand that feeds him. Yes, I understand he has some legitimate issues and has to play to the crowd but seriously.

[Kraken]

Now if only the Talib will meet us halfway....

They have little reason to. All they have to do is outlast the US, just like North Vietnam did, then move in for the kill. I see no incentive for them to come to the table as long as they have willing fighters (doesn't appear to be a shortage of them) and a place to hide in Pakistan. If we could put real pressure on them there, we'd have a chance but that's not going to happen.

Time is on their side. But what's their goal? To repel the infidel invaders and return to power. If the US is willing to concede both of those points NOW, what do they gain by drawing out the fight? The impasse to date has been our insistence that they sever ties with al Qaeda. OBL's death might let them do that. There is no love lost between those organizations.

The Viet Cong saw a huge US antiwar movement threatening our government, they had Soviet backing, and they were fighting imperialism. While we're obviously suffering war weariness now, it's nowhere near the revolutionary scale of that time -- in the 1960s our conscripted army directly affected most of our population, whereas today's volunteer force only directly impacts a small warrior caste (I think less than 5% of Americans have any skin in the game). The Taliban don't have major-power patrons, and the US is not fighting a war of conquest this time. I don't think the analogy is informative.

[Grifman]

Now if only the Talib will meet us halfway....

They have little reason to. All they have to do is outlast the US, just like North Vietnam did, then move in for the kill. I see no incentive for them to come to the table as long as they have willing fighters (doesn't appear to be a shortage of them) and a place to hide in Pakistan. If we could put real pressure on them there, we'd have a chance but that's not going to happen.

Time is on their side. But what's their goal? To repel the infidel invaders and return to power. If the US is willing to concede both of those points NOW, what do they gain by drawing out the fight? The impasse to date has been our insistence that they sever ties with al Qaeda. OBL's death might let them do that. There is no love lost between those organizations.

Whoa, there, Nelly. The US wants them to renounce Al Queda but I don't think the US is willing to let them "return to power". As I understand it we're willing to let the current govt negotiate a settlement that might bring the more moderate elements, but at least for now, we're certainly not willing to entertain a return of a Taliban govt with all that entails.

The Viet Cong saw a huge US antiwar movement threatening our government, they had Soviet backing, and they were fighting imperialism. While we're obviously suffering war weariness now, it's nowhere near the revolutionary scale of that time -- in the 1960s our conscripted army directly affected most of our population, whereas today's volunteer force only directly impacts a small warrior caste (I think less than 5% of Americans have any skin in the game). The Taliban don't have major-power patrons, and the US is not fighting a war of conquest this time. I don't think the analogy is informative.

First off, yes, war weariness is not as bad, but people are already talking about getting out of Afghanistan and Obama has said he would start drawing down troops this summer. The US is getting tired of the war - and our constant talking about it only encourages the Taliban to hold out. When you put a deadline on things, it's pretty clear how long the Taliban has to wait. War weariness won't get as bad as Vietnam because the US govt won't let it get that bad - we'll withdraw before reaching that point. So you can't say it has to be as bad - unless you believe the US govt will let it get that bad before withdrawing.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by the US is not fighting a war of conquest. However you describe Vietnam, it's pretty much the same as Afghanistan. In both cases we're propping up weak govts against an opponent who is fighting an insurgency, who can withdraw to safe havens across borders. I'm not sure why you're calling Vietnam a "war of conquest" - we weren't invading anyone, we were trying to prop up SVN the same as we are trying to prop up Karzai.

Lastly, the key point is the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. That allows them to control the speed and scope combat. They simply cannot be defeated as long as they have those safe havens to rest, refit and rearm in relative safety. They don't need a super power sponsor - they seem to be doing quite well with just Pakistan as their sponsor

The parallels don't have to be exact. There just have to be enough of them to matter. War weariness, an insurgency, inept/corrupt central govt and safe havens are the key points in both wars.

[Kraken]

I agree that Vietnam and Afghanistan have the fundamental similarities that you outlined. However, there are two crucial differences: the objectives, and the scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by the US is not fighting a war of conquest. However you describe Vietnam, it's pretty much the same as Afghanistan. In both cases we're propping up weak govts against an opponent who is fighting an insurgency, who can withdraw to safe havens across borders. I'm not sure why you're calling Vietnam a "war of conquest" - we weren't invading anyone, we were trying to prop up SVN the same as we are trying to prop up Karzai.

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

The original mission in Vietnam was to contain communist expansion in Indochina, which is what I meant by "war of conquest". Maybe my phrase was ill-chosen; the point is that it was a major open-ended military operation requiring the total defeat of the enemy. There was little chance of negotiating a favorable peace.

The original mission in Afghanistan was to get OBL, destroy al Qaeda, and drive their Taliban sponsors out of power. The first two objectives have been accomplished and the third sort-of. The Taliban remain a major force and we can't defeat them with 100,000 troops. We probably couldn't defeat them with 543,000. Washington hasn't admitted it publicly but the Karzai government is a lost cause (as you noted earlier...worst ally ever). It is never going to stand on its own. Our only chance is a negotiated peace...and the time for that looks ripe from our standpoint. I think we will quickly abandon Karzai's kleptocracy for an attractive deal with his opponents.

To return to the original argument: OBL's death creates an opening for the Taliban as well. Their refusal to break with al Qaeda has been the chief impediment to open negotiations. They now have an opportunity to do that, and little to gain by hewing to it. With Washington motivated to wrap this adventure up, their negotiating position is strong.

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.

[Scuzz]

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by the US is not fighting a war of conquest. However you describe Vietnam, it's pretty much the same as Afghanistan. In both cases we're propping up weak govts against an opponent who is fighting an insurgency, who can withdraw to safe havens across borders. I'm not sure why you're calling Vietnam a "war of conquest" - we weren't invading anyone, we were trying to prop up SVN the same as we are trying to prop up Karzai.

Lastly, the key point is the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. That allows them to control the speed and scope combat. They simply cannot be defeated as long as they have those safe havens to rest, refit and rearm in relative safety. They don't need a super power sponsor - they seem to be doing quite well with just Pakistan as their sponsor

One other item.....the corruption within South Vietnam's politicians and military prevented them from being able to fight on their own. The same is true of Afghanistan. A determined opponent is always a better fighting force than one that doesn't really care.

[Isgrimnur]

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.

[GreenGoo]

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.

[Kraken]

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.