I wonder when we talk about Afghanistan what we all mean by 'winning'. What are our definitions of success or of victory? I want to know because I think it'll make the arguments a bit more interesting if you know where everyone's coming from but also I wonder how much it shapes our overall view of Afghanistan and what should be done there.
For me I'd say victory is the establishment a stable, semi-democratic state that's able to hold its own against the Taliban. I say semi-democratic because I imagine elections will always be flawed and I think getting strong female participation will take decades of cultural change - so not a democracy in our sense, but the sort that we'd tolerate and possible even commend in a country like Afghanistan.
Success, on the other hand, is the avoidance of the perception of defeat. I'd be happy with an Afghan state that's roughly able to secure a few important areas and develop them, in which the West still has some presence for counter-terrorism strikes or strikes at Pakistan but that is not in any real sense a national administration. But that's able to maintain itself and could over time (with Western, Iranian, Chinese and Indian support) become an authentically national government.
Afghanistan doesn't return to being an export platform for terrorism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 07:25:07 AM
For me I'd say victory is the establishment a stable, semi-democratic state that's able to hold its own against the Taliban. I say semi-democratic because I imagine elections will always be flawed and I think getting strong female participation will take decades of cultural change - so not a democracy in our sense, but the sort that we'd tolerate and possible even commend in a country like Afghanistan.
It's kind of irritating how the Obama administration refuses to make a simple statement on what their objectives are besides defeating the Taliban. At first blush, though, it sounds like you and they share that definition of victory.
I'm not sure what to make of it, though. The fight against the Taliban is as much a cultural war as it is a war of physical annihilation. There's probably still a ton of resentment of perceived American and international occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq (despite the feel-good story Reuters ran about the Bush shoe-thrower getting footwear chucked at him in Paris). I'm also kind of concerned about the schedule we've placed ourselves on, despite Pakistan's being brought into the fray relatively late.
Obama was right about one thing in his strategy speech: Pakistan and Afghanistan are inextricably linked because:
1: As long as the Taliban can adopt hit-and-fade tactics along the Pakistan border, we can never be assured they won't regroup in greater numbers.
and
2: Nothing gets an Islamic extremist going like martyrs. We need to keep the Taliban away from Pakistan's nukes, because I wouldn't put it past them to get one and blow it up in their own country, then declare the collaterals martyrs and fuel a
huge jihad.
I think the chief mistake there is trying to turn the country into a modern democracy. This is not only a mistake because it has no chance. It is a mistake because it has no chance, and people will learn that democracy equals weakness, crime, terror, and corruption.
This happened in Russia in 1917 and Hungary in late 1918: you can't stop an extreme and chaotic situation by pacifism and elections (former in Hungary only, of course), at least certainly not when the population never met these two before.
Obviously, all people deserve to live in freedom, and democracy is instrumental for that (well, because it is the safest bet) but I do think that in a truly working form, it is a very advanced form of government kept alive by the middle class. Countries like Afghanistan lack those.
So, it is obviously too late to switch from the whole democracy topic there, but it should be dropped silently still, especially for future projects like Pakistan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2009, 07:48:30 AM
Afghanistan doesn't return to being an export platform for terrorism.
This.
Bonus victory points for creating a stable regime.
How will the US 'win' in Afghanistan in the next 18 months when the they and their allies didn't 'win' in the last 5 years? And if the talibans are inextricably tied with Al-Quaeda why was Hilary offering them a deal last june?
Al-Quaeda and their ilk are like a lice infection - if you don't hit all affected zones at once you may clean one but it'll get reinfected as soon as the 'medecine' stopped being applied.
In short more money, resources and lives will be wasted there for nothing. Afghanistan will not be any more stable after 2011 than it is now and in the end the western intervention will be even more resented in restrospect - thus fueling even more extremism.
These futile wars will be seen, in hindsight, as the series of events that broke the american hegemony.
G.
Quote from: Warspite on December 03, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
This.
Bonus victory points for creating a stable regime.
And some more for cute little Afghan kids learning to read and write.
I see "victory" in Afghanistan as mainly the Afghans having a decently strong and respected central government, and the nation able to start on, or continue on, a path to more economic prosperity, education, elections. Chiefly to give the populace reason and desire to resist the lure and threats of the extremist Taliban, AQ. Needed for that is security requiring an Afghan army and police to be well trained and motivated enough to be major contributors. I think that security and better prosperity go hand in hand; probably can't have one without the other; both are needed.
I am still concerned that in the long run, there is no way Afghanistan can possibly support the size of security forces they need, which means that even if we can scale back US troop commitments, we will be footing the bill for their security apparatus for the indefinite future.
I am more concerned that Afghanistan seems like a minor problem compared to Pakistan.
Quote from: Grallon on December 03, 2009, 08:46:56 AM
These futile wars will be seen, in hindsight, as the series of events that broke the american hegemony.
Nah. They had nothing to do with the growth of China and very little with the unification of Europe.
Europe isn't unified beyond their fear of brown people. :lol:
Well, we are speaking of a hypothetical future in which America has lost its hegemony. ;)
Zoroastrianism is re-established at Balkh, quickly followed by the reconstitution of a Zoroastrian Greater Iran with its capital at Ctesiphon.
Or relative stabilization of non-border areas, increasing urbanization and literacy and a rebirth of Afghan culture.
But the second is just a fantasy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2009, 07:48:30 AM
Afghanistan doesn't return to being an export platform for terrorism.
This.
However noble our goal may be of setting up a Western-style democracy there (or anything resembling it), I don't think it will stick. I'm still in favor of continuing our presence, but I'm really starting to get the feeling we've achieved about as much as we're going to.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2009, 10:10:17 AM
I am still concerned that in the long run, there is no way Afghanistan can possibly support the size of security forces they need, which means that even if we can scale back US troop commitments, we will be footing the bill for their security apparatus for the indefinite future.
They can't. The Pentagon wants to train an Afghan army of, I think 300 000 - up from 260 000 - which is just a preposterously large force for the world's poorest country. All projections from the DoD are, I believe, based on the Afghans having such a large force.
QuoteAfghanistan doesn't return to being an export platform for terrorism.
Okay, but what are the conditions necessary for that? Wouldn't a Joe Biden solution of just having Western forces in Kabul to do counter-terrorism operations and special forces stuff be enough?
Winning is going to be defined as the minimal possible threshold to get the troops out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 02:38:29 PM
Wouldn't a Joe Biden solution of just having Western forces in Kabul to do counter-terrorism operations and special forces stuff be enough?
How do you gather intel about targets?
Query:
When a country is the world's poorest, how easy is it to bring it in to, say, lower-middle area, like Iraq?
I'd think that an agricultural reform, a long with some basic level of education in all of the major towns would do a world of good, and that things like getting people to lower tariffs on Afghan agricultural exports and carpets might as well.
Balkh becomes the capital of a Neo-Baktria. Buddhism is reintroduced and the Bamiyan statues are restored.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 03, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
Query:
When a country is the world's poorest, how easy is it to bring it in to, say, lower-middle area, like Iraq?
I'd think that an agricultural reform, a long with some basic level of education in all of the major towns would do a world of good, and that things like getting people to lower tariffs on Afghan agricultural exports and carpets might as well.
Difficult when the only cash crop anyone appears to want out of Afganistan is opium. This makes US plans for the country doubly troublesome. Support "the people" and you support Heroin; attempt to change this by eliminating opium, you piss the people off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2009, 03:25:02 PM
How do you gather intel about targets?
You'd still have a presence in Afghanistan from which to launch the strikes. How do you gather intel for the drone hits in Pakistan? I doubt it's the Pakistani military.
Perhaps only 5-10% of Afghan women are literate. There is not a high bar to reach.
Quote from: Malthus on December 03, 2009, 04:41:39 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 03, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
Query:
When a country is the world's poorest, how easy is it to bring it in to, say, lower-middle area, like Iraq?
I'd think that an agricultural reform, a long with some basic level of education in all of the major towns would do a world of good, and that things like getting people to lower tariffs on Afghan agricultural exports and carpets might as well.
Difficult when the only cash crop anyone appears to want out of Afganistan is opium. This makes US plans for the country doubly troublesome. Support "the people" and you support Heroin; attempt to change this by eliminating opium, you piss the people off.
Meh. Let's just legalize opium. Maybe it can help us pay for the war.
Edit: We'll export it to China and ease the trade deficit too. Just watch out for those Boxers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:11:22 PM
You'd still have a presence in Afghanistan from which to launch the strikes. How do you gather intel for the drone hits in Pakistan? I doubt it's the Pakistani military.
If AQ reestablishes a presence in Afghanistan similar to what they have in the Pak tribal regions I don't think most people will consider that a success.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 07:25:07 AM
I wonder when we talk about Afghanistan what we all mean by 'winning'. What are our definitions of success or of victory?
As many dead fucking moonworshippers that have it in for western liberal ideals, Jews, and the Star Spangled Way of Life.
But, I'll settle for the complete and total eradication of the Taliban and the prevention of an Al-Qaeda playground.
I laugh that has been Russian generals are still giving interviews calling Afghanistan our Vietnam.
The same generals who probably said America would never be able to take the country by force.
USA > Russia ^_^
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2009, 05:11:22 PM
You'd still have a presence in Afghanistan from which to launch the strikes. How do you gather intel for the drone hits in Pakistan? I doubt it's the Pakistani military.
If AQ reestablishes a presence in Afghanistan similar to what they have in the Pak tribal regions I don't think most people will consider that a success.
But that's unlikely given that the Biden counter-terrorism option still had 30 000 troops in Afghanistan as well as drones and airforce. My comparison with Pakistan is that you have intelligence enough to strike there, surely that wouldn't be a problem in a country where you'd still have a significant troop presence and a friendly if ineffective government.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 06:13:47 AM
But that's unlikely given that the Biden counter-terrorism option still had 30 000 troops in Afghanistan as well as drones and airforce. My comparison with Pakistan is that you have intelligence enough to strike there, surely that wouldn't be a problem in a country where you'd still have a significant troop presence and a friendly if ineffective government.
I understand your comparison with Pakistan. I'm pointing out that we have the power to strike but not to eradicate.