Afghan Strategy

[AnchorClanker]

It's one thing to remove the Taliban from power, punish them for AQ connections - and quite another to pretend that the government that will replace them will be a modern, democratic institution with all the hallmarks of a Western Liberal Democracy.  There is no contradiction in supporting the 'taming' of the Taliban and the belief that a realistic endgame in Afghanistan does not include making it a Belgium of the 'Stans.

That being said, it's unfortunate that General McChrystal is taking over at this time - the political climate makes it difficult for 40,000 troops to be sent - his COIN strategy is probably the most likely shot we (as the West) have at making the situation in Afghanistan reasonably acceptable (with a functional government with some degree of control, stability and popular support) - this may or may not be a model government - it probably won't be, but we must shoot for stability first and hope for positive developments to come after that.

Also, at some point, any government - Karzai's or not - will have to deal with the Pashtuns, and that will also mean some degree of accomodation for the Taliban.  This is distasteful, but probably inevitable.

[AnchorClanker]

PS for Berkut - Afghanistan was a defensible war, Iraq wasn't - from a 'casus belli' angle.
I still think that in both cases, we were far too complacent about our ability to control the situations to our liking, and became prisoners of our own unrealistic conditions for 'victory'.

[Berkut]

To people who want more war in Afghanistan, what's the end game?  That's the greatest thing that seems to be missing from the picture.  Invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and we're justified in staying there, but I just don't see where this is going.  At least Iraq is civilized and used to the idea of strong central government.  By comparison, Afghanistan is an ungovernable wasteland.  On the other hand, abandoning wastelands creates safe heavens for the people that are or would eventually become a danger to us, so it's not an easy option either.

The only possible "eng game" I could see is the US using adequate force to pacify and weaken the anti-government forces while building up the government military/police to a point that they can maintain some semblance of control themselves.

The problem is that that end game has no end part. Afghanistan will never be able to afford the amount of military and police that will need, so we will have to bankroll their defense spending for the foreseeable future, and have advisors, reaction foces, support, etc., etc. there.

[Valmy]

Why are the Pashtuns 100% behind a group that blows up schools for educating girls?  They have no other group worth supporting than that one?

[AnchorClanker]

Berk - bang on with that last post.  I have no idea how AF can make a reliable, national force AND pay for it.

[AnchorClanker]

Why are the Pashtuns 100% behind a group that blows up schools for educating girls?  They have no other group worth supporting than that one?

Uh, it's not that they necessarily agree with all the religious issues - it's a question of ethnic identity.
Think of the Tamil relationship with the Tigers and you have a reasonable analogy.

[Valmy]

The only possible "eng game" I could see is the US using adequate force to pacify and weaken the anti-government forces while building up the government military/police to a point that they can maintain some semblance of control themselves.

The problem is that that end game has no end part. Afghanistan will never be able to afford the amount of military and police that will need, so we will have to bankroll their defense spending for the foreseeable future, and have advisors, reaction foces, support, etc., etc. there.

Yep we are going to be stuck in Aghanistan for the forseeable future.

[Valmy]

Uh, it's not that they necessarily agree with all the religious issues - it's a question of ethnic identity.
Think of the Tamil relationship with the Tigers and you have a reasonable analogy.

This is why ethnicity is such a fucked up way to identify yourself.  People should support people based on ideology and not just support whatever jackass nutcase their ethnic group embraces.

[AnchorClanker]

Uh, it's not that they necessarily agree with all the religious issues - it's a question of ethnic identity.
Think of the Tamil relationship with the Tigers and you have a reasonable analogy.

This is why ethnicity is such a fucked up way to identify yourself.  People should support people based on ideology and not just support whatever jackass nutcase their ethnic group embraces.

Perhaps - but we have to work with reality.  The NA was non-Pashtun.  The Taliban were Pashtun.  Both sides were nasty in their own ways, nobody in AF wears a white hat.  Karzai rigging the elections isn't going to help with the stability and legitimacy issue, either.  I'm glad I'm not General McChrystal.  I don't envy his job.

[Hansmeister]

That funny Ank, since the lefty CW during the Iraq war was that Iraq was hopeless, while Afghanistan was not, and we should be spending our efforts in Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

Now that Iraq has actually turned out much better than anyone thought it would in the dark days, and Afghanistan is turning into a mess under the expert direction of Obama, suddenly Afghanistan is hopeless, and to the extent that there could be any hope, Iraq ruined it.

Which of course makes no damn sense - if it is hopeless, it is hopeless regardless of Iraq.

I wish we still had the old languish since that is a point i made several years ago:  Iraq is a far easier nut to crack than Afghanistan.  The only reason the left was talking up their committment to the "good war" in Afghanistan as opposed to the "bad war" in iraq is that they wanted to sound like they're really committed to defend the US and didn't want to admit to the public that they'll never defend the US no matter what.  The moment the "unwinnable" war in Iraq was won they now proclaim Afghanistan unwinnable and are preparing for surrender.  No surprise there.

[Hansmeister]

PS for Berkut - Afghanistan was a defensible war, Iraq wasn't - from a 'casus belli' angle.
I still think that in both cases, we were far too complacent about our ability to control the situations to our liking, and became prisoners of our own unrealistic conditions for 'victory'.

Nonsense, we had a perfect casus belli against Iraq as well - its continuous refusal to abide by the cease fire agreement was all that was ever needed to justify a return to a state of war.

[Hansmeister]

To people who want more war in Afghanistan, what's the end game?  That's the greatest thing that seems to be missing from the picture.  Invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and we're justified in staying there, but I just don't see where this is going.  At least Iraq is civilized and used to the idea of strong central government.  By comparison, Afghanistan is an ungovernable wasteland.  On the other hand, abandoning wastelands creates safe heavens for the people that are or would eventually become a danger to us, so it's not an easy option either.

The only possible "eng game" I could see is the US using adequate force to pacify and weaken the anti-government forces while building up the government military/police to a point that they can maintain some semblance of control themselves.

The problem is that that end game has no end part. Afghanistan will never be able to afford the amount of military and police that will need, so we will have to bankroll their defense spending for the foreseeable future, and have advisors, reaction foces, support, etc., etc. there.

There needs to be less of an emphasys on building up a central gov't and more focus on building up local governance - that is where the war will be won or lost.  The afghani gov't is far too centralized as it is currently constituted, it's a recipe for disaster.

[Valmy]

PS for Berkut - Afghanistan was a defensible war, Iraq wasn't - from a 'casus belli' angle.
I still think that in both cases, we were far too complacent about our ability to control the situations to our liking, and became prisoners of our own unrealistic conditions for 'victory'.

Nonsense, we had a perfect casus belli against Iraq as well - its continuous refusal to abide by the cease fire agreement was all that was ever needed to justify a return to a state of war.

Well from a legalistic point of view that is true.

You do have to admit it was far easier to justify the Afghanistan involvement at the time.  In any case I am against any sort of retreat right now.  We have this rather undeserved reputation for cutting and running and I would prefer we not give our enemies a chance to think they can just outlast us.  In the end that will create more problems than staying in Afghanistan would.

[Valmy]

There needs to be less of an emphasys on building up a central gov't and more focus on building up local governance - that is where the war will be won or lost.  The afghani gov't is far too centralized as it is currently constituted, it's a recipe for disaster.

Well what were the factors that enabled Afghanistan to be rather stable and peaceful during the monarchy?  Can those elements be recreated?

[Tonitrus]

There needs to be less of an emphasys on building up a central gov't and more focus on building up local governance - that is where the war will be won or lost.  The afghani gov't is far too centralized as it is currently constituted, it's a recipe for disaster.

Well what were the factors that enabled Afghanistan to be rather stable and peaceful during the monarchy?  Can those elements be recreated?

From Wiki.....

"By 1921, banditry was dramatically curtailed in Afghanistan by harsh punishment, such as being imprisoned in suspended cages and left to die."