.Afghan agony: More troops won't help
GEN. Stan McChrystal, an honorable soldier, has reported from Afghani stan: He wants more troops for a "classic" counterinsurgency strategy to secure the population, then win hearts and minds.
President Obama needs to make a decision: Either give the general the resources he believes he needs, or change the mission.
I'm for changing the mission. Concentrate on the continued destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. Nothing else matters in this mess.
Last spring, the president handed McChrystal an impossible mission: Turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, rule-of-law democracy cherished by its citizens. The general's doing his best. But we have zero chance -- zero -- of making that happen.
Meanwhile, we've forgotten why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't to make nice with toothless tribesmen.) Here's a simple way to conceptualize our problem: A pack of murderous gangsters holes up in a fleabag motel. The feds raid the joint, killing or busting most of them. But some of the deadly ringleaders get away.
Should the G-men pursue the kingpins, or hang around to renovate the motel? Common sense says: Go after the gangsters. They're the problem, not the run-down bunkhouse.
Yet, in Afghanistan, we've put the bulk of our efforts into turning a vast flophouse into the Four Seasons -- instead of focusing ruthlessly on our terrorist enemies. It's politically correct madness.
What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration.
Those who suggest pulling out completely and striking from offshore don't understand the fundamentals, either: We still need some boots on the ground, within grabbing distance of Pakistan's wild northwest, to strike fast to kill or capture elusive targets. And cruise missiles can't bring back prisoners, DNA samples or captured documents.
Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't.
The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps.
What of the notion that a surge could turn Afghanistan around since a surge worked in Iraq? Iraqis switched loyalties (temporarily) because al Qaeda turned out to be a far less pleasant occupier than we were. We were lucky in our enemies.
But the Taliban's the home team in much of Afghanistan. The dominant ethnic group, the Pashtuns, won't turn against the Taliban because they are the Taliban.
Then there's the subfantasy of "training up" the Afghan military and police (who, after eight years of our efforts, remain operationally ineffective and abysmally corrupt).
A great old soldier recently reminded me that it took us eight years to build a capable South Vietnamese army (which was then betrayed by Democrats in Congress). The difference is that, except for the Montagnards and other back-country folk, Vietnam didn't have tribes.
The Vietnamese had a unified ethnic identity. In Afghanistan, we're asking Hutus to fight for Tutsis and Hatfields to guard McCoys.
During the Soviet occupation, there was a serious Afghan military of over 300,000 men equipped with tanks and helicopters. At their peak strength, the Soviets themselves had almost 140,000 troops and tens of thousands of civilian advisers on the ground. Moscow still lost -- and not just because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we gave the mujaheddin (a core group of whom became the Taliban).
The Soviets and their Afghan cronies lost because their enemies were willing to sacrifice more -- to give their lives for their heritage, however backward and cruel.
Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us.
NYPost
President Obama needs to make a decision: Either give the general the resources he believes he needs, or change the mission.
I'm for changing the mission. Concentrate on the continued destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. Nothing else matters in this mess.
Last spring, the president handed McChrystal an impossible mission: Turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, rule-of-law democracy cherished by its citizens. The general's doing his best. But we have zero chance -- zero -- of making that happen.
Meanwhile, we've forgotten why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't to make nice with toothless tribesmen.) Here's a simple way to conceptualize our problem: A pack of murderous gangsters holes up in a fleabag motel. The feds raid the joint, killing or busting most of them. But some of the deadly ringleaders get away.
Should the G-men pursue the kingpins, or hang around to renovate the motel? Common sense says: Go after the gangsters. They're the problem, not the run-down bunkhouse.
Yet, in Afghanistan, we've put the bulk of our efforts into turning a vast flophouse into the Four Seasons -- instead of focusing ruthlessly on our terrorist enemies. It's politically correct madness.
What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration.
Those who suggest pulling out completely and striking from offshore don't understand the fundamentals, either: We still need some boots on the ground, within grabbing distance of Pakistan's wild northwest, to strike fast to kill or capture elusive targets. And cruise missiles can't bring back prisoners, DNA samples or captured documents.
Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't.
The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps.
What of the notion that a surge could turn Afghanistan around since a surge worked in Iraq? Iraqis switched loyalties (temporarily) because al Qaeda turned out to be a far less pleasant occupier than we were. We were lucky in our enemies.
But the Taliban's the home team in much of Afghanistan. The dominant ethnic group, the Pashtuns, won't turn against the Taliban because they are the Taliban.
Then there's the subfantasy of "training up" the Afghan military and police (who, after eight years of our efforts, remain operationally ineffective and abysmally corrupt).
A great old soldier recently reminded me that it took us eight years to build a capable South Vietnamese army (which was then betrayed by Democrats in Congress). The difference is that, except for the Montagnards and other back-country folk, Vietnam didn't have tribes.
The Vietnamese had a unified ethnic identity. In Afghanistan, we're asking Hutus to fight for Tutsis and Hatfields to guard McCoys.
During the Soviet occupation, there was a serious Afghan military of over 300,000 men equipped with tanks and helicopters. At their peak strength, the Soviets themselves had almost 140,000 troops and tens of thousands of civilian advisers on the ground. Moscow still lost -- and not just because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we gave the mujaheddin (a core group of whom became the Taliban).
The Soviets and their Afghan cronies lost because their enemies were willing to sacrifice more -- to give their lives for their heritage, however backward and cruel.
Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us.
NYPost
posted by madtom at 9:45 PM
11 Comments:
Much as I hate it, I agree with this assessment. A goal of making Afghanistan into anything resembling a modern, pluralistic society seems impossible. But, if that is going to be the goal, time to get started in a big way. I'd be curious to know what the generals really think. I think we know what their method to reach the goal is, but what would they set as a goal if asked? His 'Oliness is going to stay true to himself and vote 'present' unless pressed really hard, which the generals have apparently realized.
Well there is a clear mistake in his reasoning, not to say it's not tempting, but is this solution really better, or does it just sound better...
Anyone that's lived on main street understands the folly in this.
Should the G-men pursue the kingpins, or hang around to renovate the motel? Common sense says: Go after the gangsters. They're the problem, not the run-down bunkhouse.
You can never get all the bad guys if you leave the breading ground intact, they'll just breed more.
`If there were easy solutions, everyone else would have done it already.
So do you propose we nuke the place? The place is an isolated, backward hell hole and there is no way in hell we are going to commit to doing what would have to be done to change that. You really would have to nuke the place and repopulate it, then spend trillions of dollars. It's a place and culture that longs to be ruled by warlords and the best we can do is pick and choose which rulers best suit our purposes and kill the ones that don't. If there are enough Afghans that want something better, support them, but if they aren't willing to fight and die for what they've come to think we are obligated to provide----let them be a lesson. The hard truth is that wars aren't ever really won anymore. Your opposition has to be killed along with any that are willing to live with them and monuments erected to the winners so those few enemies that remain are reminded they lost and have to learn to live with it. But now we have to be tolerant and understanding. People who enslave women and children and behead people in the name of religious orthodoxy must think that's funny.
I don't think we need to go there, the plan already at hand should be enough, protect the population and build, everyone likes clean water, irrigation, roads and open markets. It's not brain surgery Will, it's all the normal crap we take so for granted we cant even see it.
No, everyone doesn't like those things. What we see now is that the Afghan people don't want those things nearly as badly as some of the people hate those things because it threatens their control. In Iraq the people had some appreciation for such things and ultimately were willing to help fight to keep them or get them back. Afghan is a different planet from what I can see, read, and have been told by a couple I know that have been there. You get outside of the few cities and it's the stone age with automatic weapons.
It's a waste of men and money, both of which are becoming increasingly scarce here at home. Even if you are right, we don't have the money--- that is a fact we are just now starting to grips with, but it is a fact. 1.3 trillion dollar deficits on average for 10 years isn't even remotely sustainable, but that's what is on the horizon.
You make the argument for me. We have already seen just how far the reach of stone age people with automatic weapons can be. You think you can wall them off, or wall yourself in? Which would you try first?
And if we don't have the money, we better start saving it from somewhere, cut something, raise taxes, or what we've been doing print more. Allowing that cancer to grow and cut off the worlds energy supplies does not sound like the right answer to me. Then again once the kingdom falls I am sure we would have many more willing to help. Maybe the best way to get there from here would be to quicken the inevitable
If you're concerned about people cutting off the world's energy supply, why don't you talk to your own state government that's cutting off more oil and gas supply than these goat fuckers ever will.
I don't propose leaving them to do what was done. I propose staying in close 'contact' with the various warlords and tell them if we see a guy so much as wearing a death to america t-shirt in their camp either by drone, satelite, informant, etc, he is a dead man. Hell fire from above. If his people are willing to put up with throwing bags over their women and beating people for listening to a radio, that's between them. If there are those that won't stand for it, leave them some weapons, give them intel, but let them live or die according to their own convictions. I seriously doubt the Taliban will have any use for the Arab jihadists after the last ten years and the occasional hellfire missile as a reminder. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't kill more Al Quida that we ever could if we left them 'alone'.
Cut something? 1.3 trillion per year-- but you are going to increase the military budget? I guess medicare will have to go cuz there isn't that much money left anywhere in the budget. You can print more, but it won't buy more. Right now we truly are at the mercy of China and Japan. They could put us on Mexico level economy with one press release. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
"I propose staying in close 'contact'"
How do you propose to do that from Texas? You need to be in the stan to make that more than a hollow threat.
If you think they are fighting for just the Stan, your not watching close enough. It's not the stan they want it's the Kingdom's wealth that they want and if we were to just throw in the towel and come home we would be handing it to them on a silver platter.
China and Japan, please, if we go down they do too, if they devalue the dollar, they lose their own savings. Where are they going to sell their products, Mars?
The tipping point is long passed. Yes, they would suffer, but not as much as we would and they know it. The Chinese are saving nearly 40% of their money and have been for a while. They have consumers waiting to consume with money in the bank, we don't. Eventually they are going to have to say fuck it--- if they can buy enough raw materials to dump as many dollars as possible, fuck it they will. I read today that Australia is about to pass a law so that foreign (china) companies can't buy more than 15% of Australian mining companies because they have already bought majority stock in most of them-- with US dollars.
"They have consumers waiting to consume with money in the bank"
But that's a double edged sword Will, a powerful affluent middle class in China is a bigger threat to the Chinese communist one party state than ten American invasions. Clinton wins, check mate.
The Chinese are smarter than that.
China is increasingly self sufficient. If they manage to wiggle out from under some of the piles of US dollars by exchanging them for raw materials, I believe they would gladly watch us collapse. What would you pay for world domination? Their people are going to want something from their slave masters, and that's as good of a trophy as any.
Post a Comment
<< Home