View Full Version : From bad to worse: why the forgotten war is failing
Skybird
10-10-07, 06:16 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-510674,00.html
(...)
The commander sits in a chair, his back to the television set, and points to a military map on the wall. "You see," he says, "I am responsible for an area half the size of Italy." Then he rattles off the relevant statistics. Of the 1,800 soldiers under his command, only 270 can go on patrol. If he sends two units out on patrol, they can easily find themselves operating 400 kilometers (249 miles) apart. "It's as if one of them were in Turin and the other in Venice," says the general.
(...)
The news that reaches Berlin from Afghanistan these days is simply too horrific. Members of parliament who have visited the country describe a place on the verge of collapse. Instead of declining, the problems of poverty, corruption, violence and sheer hopelessness are on the rise. Government institutions are virtually nonexistent in many parts of the country, the police are corrupt and overworked and the military isn't in much better shape. The effects of Western development aid go largely unnoticed by much of the population.
The security situation is also becoming more and more precarious. More than 5,000 people were killed in attacks or combat during the first nine months of this year alone. According to a United Nations report, acts of violence have increased by close to 30 percent this year. Three-quarters of the attacks are directed against Afghan soldiers, police officers and foreign troops, "in a deliberate and calculated effort to impede the establishment of legitimate government institutions," the UN report states.
The situation on the military front is unclear. In a Sep. 18 classified report labeled "Urgent" to the governments of European Union member states, the EU's special envoy in Kabul, Spain's Francesc Vendrell, identifies a "paradoxical trend." "While ISAF is achieving significant military successes against the insurgents, especially as a result of targeted attacks on Taliban commanders," Vendrell writes, "the unsafe zone in which the insurgents operate is growing." Even a weak Taliban presence is sufficient, Vendrell continues, to bring "normal government activities to an end" and to bring large segments of the population under the influence of the insurgents.
Vendrell's conclusions coincide with the results of a study by the Senlis Council, an international think tank, which conducted a survey in March of 12,000 Afghan men in the southern and eastern sections of the country, regions which have seen fierce fighting. The study's conclusions were devastating. In late 2001, the vast majority of Afghans believed that the Taliban had been defeated once and for all. Today only half of those surveyed are convinced that international forces will win the war against the insurgents in southern Afghanistan. It appears that although the Taliban is unlikely to win the war militarily, it is increasingly emerging victorious in the battle for public opinion. (...)
The German way had a good start as long as the conditions did not detoriate. When they did, Germany's trousers slipped down. Since close to six years, needed changes were not implemented by all nations committed to Afghnaistan, and needed support levels were missed by far by the international community. Where last winter I warned that the Afghanistan mission was running on a thin line between regaining previopusly detoriating chances for success, and total failure, I must conclude from analysis like this essay and personal feedback by people I know and who have to deal in that place professionally, that the Afghanistan war is lost for sure, since I see no realistic chance anymore that Western governments would ever give it the ressources and attention that it would take to throw around the rudder again. and that would mean an incrasing of committment on all levels and in all aspects, financially, economically, militarily, by several hundred percent. Guess yourself how realistic that is - not more realistic than to see the Us sending 300.000 additional troops into Iraq.
The plain down-to-earth conclusion: after six years of war, NATO states have lost two major internatio0nal engagements - totally, completely, and miserably. Western governments will squirm for another, probably longer time to come before finding some formulations and half-truths behind which they could hide when retreating. This will only delay the score becoming offical - it will not prevent it anymore.
Fools in office thought they could repair in a cheap, easy way, what a quarter of a century of constant war has destroyed. As fools they came, and as fools they will leave.
"Trapped in the Afghan maze."
i don't pretend to have any great in depth knowledge of the situation..but there is one fundamental thing that keeps cropping up..
"we" have a clearly defined military...which is seperate from the normal civilian population..and has it's own rules...and expectations..and definitions of victory and defeat...it also has expectations of what should happen when an enemy's countrys military is engaged fought and defeated....they surrender ...and the enemy civilian government then negotiates with the civilian government of the victorious nation..
the Afghans don't actualy have a clearly defined and seperate military "army" "airforce" etc...their fighters are for the most part civilians with weapons...with entirely different views on what consitutes victory and defeat...and no matter what else comes into play regarding the rights and wrongs of those civilians beliefs politics or anything else for that matter....the military CANNOT defeat the civilian population of any country...because civilians have no concept of military rules of engagement...
the goal posts for each side are not on the same playing "pitch"
they are not even fighting the same war....
the civilian population of any country cannot surrender...it's simply not possible there is no political mechanism that allows them to surrender..
so..neither side can win and neither side can lose...and only one side can withdraw...
too many people have died allready....
So as in previous conflicts what have we learned . . . there is no substitute for victory and determined occupation and rebuilding once victorious. Without it, it allows, old factions, and new factions to be born, grow, and threaten the government which you attempt to establish. Unless you build a strong and stable government, built on good theories, and backed back a strong force, then that government will give way to those elements which will back themselves with greater force, thus replacing it.
In this case, we have not provided a strong enough force, and have allowed the government to remain weak. This means that there is no economic or physical security for the people. Thus the people seek those they believe will bring economic and physical stability.
That is not to say with a lot more effort we cannot reestablish Kabul's governance over its lands . . . however, if we do not do more . . . the current situation will continue to deteriate.
And let us not say that we cannot.
For we Can. We have larger economies, and greater access to resources then we did in the pass. Furthermore, we have more people, and a larger manpool which to draw forces which to create a stable and successful endeavor. The question is whether we have the combined willpower to take all these advantages, focus them, and bring our abilities to bear true weight on the situation.
At this junction we, as an international community, lack any willpower at all.
Skybird
10-11-07, 05:35 AM
So as in previous conflicts what have we learned . . . there is no substitute for victory and determined occupation and rebuilding once victorious. Without it, it allows, old factions, and new factions to be born, grow, and threaten the government which you attempt to establish. Unless you build a strong and stable government, built on good theories, and backed back a strong force, then that government will give way to those elements which will back themselves with greater force, thus replacing it.
In this case, we have not provided a strong enough force, and have allowed the government to remain weak. This means that there is no economic or physical security for the people. Thus the people seek those they believe will bring economic and physical stability.
That is not to say with a lot more effort we cannot reestablish Kabul's governance over its lands . . . however, if we do not do more . . . the current situation will continue to deteriate.
And let us not say that we cannot.
For we Can. We have larger economies, and greater access to resources then we did in the pass. Furthermore, we have more people, and a larger manpool which to draw forces which to create a stable and successful endeavor. The question is whether we have the combined willpower to take all these advantages, focus them, and bring our abilities to bear true weight on the situation.
At this junction we, as an international community, lack any willpower at all.
For most of history if not all, Kabul's power always ended at the border of the capital'S district. Beyond that, the tribes had and have the saying.
For the same reason the model of establishing a state in the way it was outlined in the opening paragraph, most likely will not work, or only would work for a limited period of time. It's like letting free sweetwater-fish in a pond of saltwater. Due to the immense cultural difference, we should not assume that recipes we used in rebuilding Western or comparable nations after wars in the past, would work here so easily as well. Note how many states that are so-called "failed" states display a comparable social-cultural environemnt comparable to the society Afghans have lived by for eons.
but that is achademical chatter. Point is that if we would have wished to keep the Taleban out once and forever, we would have needed to go in with much more determination, effort, ressources, forces (which then again would have meet growing resistance of the tribe leaders) and prepared to stay there instead of shifting the military focus to another place (America -> Iraq), whereas Germany thought that some gestures alone would do the job of securing endless thankfulness of the Afghans which then would take care of the Taleban themselves. Don't get your hands dirty, was the German motto. But the truth is: in Afghanistan rule only three masters: hunger and how to calm it, tradition and blood feud, and the greater number of rifles. these cannot be hindered by idealism alone. what use has building a school, if the children get ambushed and killed, and parents then do not dare to send their children to that place again. And wanting to limit poppy cultivation has no meaning if the income of farmers depends on it due to lacking alternatives and financial interests of warlords that can field more heavily armed armies than the Kabulistan government.
The list of priorities has been a terrible mess from the beginning. And this is true for ALL nations that got engaged there in any form. the will to do what was needed was not there in the beginning, and it is even smaller now. that Pakistan is accepted to interfere so massively in Afghanistan since decades, is of no real help either. It better is described as an additional obstacle, and support for the enemy. Don't be fooled by the current military sweep of the Pakistani along their border. It has no real meaning and is not representative for their intentions. It's immense American pressure that made them doing it, more or less against the will of major parts of the intel and military community. Also, in the past five years the Pakistani LOST all major engagements in the tribal areas in the long run, or saw their gains (intentionally?) being neutralized afterwards. No Pakistani military leader, so very many having storng sympathies for the Taleban anyway, is happy to push into these territories, knowing very well that the people there have the will and the means to make life extremely unpleasant for any invading governmental force. That's why they enjoyed almost autonomy for very long time: the government tried to ignore them and not to deal with them as best as it could.
I have said this before, and I have said this elsewhere, and I shall say it again. They said that Japanese Culture was incompatible with democracy, yet Japan was able to become democracy after over a decade of heavy occupation, rebuilding, and guidence. Afghanistan has lacked that, and you're right . . . past efforts and current efforts have been miminal at best. Furthermore, what you are saying regarding secure and economy I cannot agree with you more.
Same would go anywhere else . . . what use is it to build a school when you cannot defend those who attend it, or who travel to attend it. Back when there was the sniper on the US East Coast in 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks), parents would not send their children to school, and some people stopped travelling, in order to garuntee their well being. Not until people felt secure to continue their daily lives did they decide to leave their homes to continue life. So it is anywhere else. Therefore, it's no suprise people don't wish to go to schools, some which were built with explosives directly in the walls (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.school.bomb/index.html). And then you mention the lack of economic advancement. Well if the only market which they can afford to feed their family is poppy, is it no suprise that market forces have lead them to continue to grow it. Look at what happened with the ill supported efforts at starting wheat production. They were only given the seeds, weren't assisted in getting it to market (as poppys are), aren't paid in advance for production (as poppys are), and those who were able to get the product to market found a weak price for their product. Therefore market forces lead them to continue to grow poppies. For groups backed by anti-government forces (taliban included), provide the economic backing which make poppy production economically viable for those farmers . . . and thus they reap profit once the product is sold.
Therefore, as I have stated before, to combat anti-government forces . . . it will take bringing physical and economic security in order to influence the populace to side with th Kabul government. Without either, the degredation of the country will continue unabatted. This goes with any nation in the world. Thus what is needed to end this degredation, I have already stated. Now the real question is whether the international community, including my nation, has the willpower to take our resources and back the government of afghanistan properly in order for it to bring physical and economic security.
Skybird
10-12-07, 08:04 AM
Well, I still think you are massively underestimating the power of local traditions, the ties of a tribal structure like to be seen in Afghnaistan, and last but not least the striking power (not necessarily militarily) of the ideology the West is up against. Also, japan was totally defeated, defenselss from A to Z, and has given up and surrendered collectively, totally, and was under undisputed influence and control of the victor. This is not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan, and never will be the case, since there is no way in which it could be acchieved without warfare on the scale of WWII again. Then, I dare say that beside the excesses of WWII, like Germany, Japan is a much more civilised culture than Afghanistan, with a higher level of moral and social, technological, educational etc. developement, whith a higher degree of humane morals and ethics, making the abyss between america and Japan look like a narrow pond, compared to the abyss between Quranic views of the world, and western civilisation. And finally, one need to look closer at Japanese politics and economy to see that these systems have gone a very different road than democracies in the West, and market societies in the West. the hidden powers behind the stage of official labels like democracy and market economy reveal almost unmoving, unchanging clans or blocks of interest groups who may compete with each other when being left alone, but towards the outside world are being allied in a spirit of unification, rallying and block-defending that is without a second example anywhere in the world, maybe with the exception of China, I don't know. Collective nationalistic block thinking and mutual support even between rivaling corporations, to defend against the outside, is extremely strong in Japan, stronger than anything economical that we know in the West. I have read authors saying that the Japanese democracy, if only looking close enough, compares closer to the democarcy they had in the former GDR, or the cooperation of different clans in the system of Mafias, than to democracies as being defined by Western constitutions.
But all that has no relevance for the situation in Islamic nations anyway. they do not compare neither to the post-war germany, nor the post-war Japan, nor do they have comparable starting conditions. One cannot compare tennis with football. and saying football matches could end 40 to love if only the team would unleash the needed ressources.
Although I agree that the cultural background of Japan and Afghanistan is different, I think you underestimate the basics of my arguement, and dismiss it based on other reasons, then the reasons I stated in my last posting. In it I put for the position that with physical and economic security, one is able to develop an area through other means, and without those two securities the present situation in a given area will deteriate allowing others who provide those two securities to mold an area as they see fit.
Skybird
10-12-07, 09:30 AM
Although I agree that the cultural background of Japan and Afghanistan is different, I think you underestimate the basics of my arguement, and dismiss it based on other reasons, then the reasons I stated in my last posting. In it I put for the position that with physical and economic security, one is able to develop an area through other means, and without those two securities the present situation in a given area will deteriate allowing others who provide those two securities to mold an area as they see fit.I understood you ( and in parts agree with you) quite well! ;) I only disagree in so far that it does not work like this in all parts of the world, but only in some. Our difference is that you take it as a general blueprint that works for all situations. Whereas I say it is a blueprint to be used only in some situations/environments. Because not all places on earth are all the same, any may be driven by very different basic variables. Certain blueprints only work for certain variables. They cannot work as well, or not at all, if only enough of their preconditions are not met.
I am always suspicious to generalized solutions, and call for individual analysis and according tailoring of solutions instead. I also accept that sometimes solutions are beyond what could be reached intentionally. Bitter, but true.
he he!..ok try this
the only people who can defeat the Afghans ..are other Afghans..
wether that is in the form of the Afghan government forces or overwhelming Afghan social dissaproval and pressure..
to allow this Afghanistan needs a strong independant government ..(same with Iraq i would guess).of course this isn't going to happen..because this runs the risk of Afghanistan doing it's own thing which may not fit in with our plans..(strong independat government etc ..self explanatory..)...(again probably the same with Iraq)....military might can only defeat military might...except as shown with Saddams Iraq and others..where that military might is coming from the countrys own armed forces...ie oppression military state dictatorship etc etc..we are not fighting military might...we are fighting civilians with weapons...hearts and minds..
the military can't win the hearts and minds of some one else's country...by staying the only intelligible message being transfered to the population is that we haven't given power back to your government...we don't trust your government..and because we don't trust your government..we will not hand power over to it..
nice catch 22 which cannot be lost on the population..(no matter how intialy gratefull they may have been for the regime change etc)
this may sound out of place...but keep rolling the dice...you still need a six to get out of jail no matter how fancy the arguments..
government by the people for the people...we either do what we say we wanted to do or stop kidding our selves..or do we not trust the Afghans?? or do we not trust the Iraq's...what is it that we want from them?? these are the questions that differentiate between liberation and colonisation..the answers are brewing in the hearts and minds of the population as we speak..and will continue to do so...at an ever accelerating rate as time goes by...soon even the neutrals will pick a side
the Aghanistan government is more than capable of taking care of the situation in Afghanistan...and if it isn't capable...then ...well...er....fill in blank as appropiate?
remember that the majority of any countrys population do not normally think in such terms as would grace a so called "high minded" debate such as this..they react to what they see experience and hear...every day..they/we have a "gut reaction" and in a democracy it's that "gut reaction" that wins elections..lol round and round we go...what DO they/we want ?
ordinary people (like our selves) doing ordinary things...frankly they/we don't want to be ruled by any one other than members of their/our own population...on that you/we/they any-one can depend..
Skybird
10-12-07, 10:54 AM
he he!..ok try this
the only people who can defeat the Afghans ..are other Afghans..
wether that is in the form of the Afghan government forces
Afghan government forces...? All the major warlords are better armed and equipped than Kabulistan.
or overwhelming Afghan social dissaproval and pressure..
from nothing cannot come more than nothing.
to allow this Afghanistan needs a strong independant government
In Afghanistan...???
..(same with Iraq i would guess).of course this isn't going to happen..because this runs the risk of Afghanistan doing it's own thing which may not fit in with our plans..(strong independat government etc ..self explanatory..)...(again probably the same with Iraq)....military might can only defeat military might...except as shown with Saddams Iraq and others..where that military might is coming from the countrys own armed forces...ie oppression military state dictatorship etc etc..we are not fighting military might...we are fighting civilians with weapons...hearts and minds..
Only part of the truth. Truth is there never was a strong central govenment, only strong tribes, and a respect for the king, which is no more there. Pakistan will also not stop interfering with Afghnaistan. If oyu want to "pacify" Afghanistan, you must first kick the sh!t out of Pakistan - cheers! Next there is Saudi Arabia. Iran. All of these have their hands into Afghan affairs.
the military can't win the hearts and minds of some one else's country...by staying the only intelligible message being transfered to the population is that we haven't given power back to your government...we don't trust your government..
How could we? The Afghan government is totally helpless and 100% depending on foreign powers to even survive. Major parts of the police, political adminsitrations, the government, are shaken by deep-rooting corruption. Karzai is a king without a land, and without an army, and without money, and without... full stop. as the German hostage that just got freed this week reported (again), Afghan police is no guardian, but a security risk - they helped his kidnappers to kidnapp him and his Afgha helpers. Military trainers, both German and Americans, reprot a very high level of unreliability amongst military groups, and the police, and regular desertion is "nullyfying" all training effects.
and because we don't trust your government..we will not hand power over to it..
nice catch 22 which cannot be lost on the population..(no matter how intialy gratefull they may have been for the regime change etc)
this may sound out of place...but keep rolling the dice...you still need a six to get out of jail no matter how fancy the arguments..
Yes. That's why I entitled my essay back then "Trapped in the Afghan maze". as a matter of fact the Western nations have missed all chances and let all opportunities pass by in the past 5 years. They do not have a realistic understanding of the complexity of the ethnic realities ion the ground, they do not have a realistic mission goal, they do not have an exit stragey, they do not have a time table, they do not have the ressources and will to go back to it in overwhelming strength, what after 5 years of failings would be necessary to keep even a chance to reverse the course. All they have is a mind that wonders, a small armed force that does shadow-boxing, and their self-deceiving strategy that onlöy consist of this and nothing more: irrational hope.
government by the people for the people...we either do what we say we wanted to do or stop kidding our selves..or do we not trust the Afghans?? or do we not trust the Iraq's...what is we want from them??
More democracy in Egypt led to a rise of the Muslim bortherhood'S influence. Democracy in the Palestinian territories led to the Hamas in power. Democracy in Iran led to Ahmadinejadh. Democracy in Turky led to a "fundamentalistic" islamic party seizing the three key posts in the Turkish state, foriming the goivernment, and already having started to push Sharia rulings in public life, administration, and education, abandoning secular principles that had been implmented by Atatürk to prevent Sharia and Islam showing it's face in the state's institutions and public society. The Taleban are already more popular in Afghanistan tha n the Americans and their idealism. Sounds absurd, but is true. and Iraq: democracy would lead to a splitting of the country into three de facto soveign provinces (a red rag for Turkey concerning the Kurdish sector), and Iran taking the chance to boolster it's position and push against the Saudis.
Anyone else wanting to give them "democracy"? Anyone else thinking we could even afford that? The brutal truth is: democracy in Islamic societies helps not to push humanism and Western values, but prthodox, conservatiove Islamic values. Which only is logical. the querstion remains: can we afford to assist in that? the loud and yelling answer must be: NO.
these are the questions that differentiate between liberation and colonisation..the answers are brewing in the hearts and minds of the population as we speak..and will continue to do so...at an ever accelerating rate as time goes by...
the Aghanistan government is more than capable of taking care of the situation in Afghanistan...and if it isn't capable...then ...well...er....fill in blank as appropiate?
Yes, exactly that: "er..." So what the f#ck are we still doing there - get your and our and all troops out there, leave Afghans and Pakistani for themselves and shoot them if they try to carry their damn djihad into the West, what they will do without doubt. We have no prize to win over there, and we do not have the will to fight how war needs to be fought: brutal, powerful, destructive and unforgiving. As Spetznatz-General Lebed, battling Schah-Massud in the Pandjir Valley, after the Afghanistan war has said (and it should be engraved into the brain of every Western politician):
"In Afghanistan I made very personal experiences with the fanatical fighters of Islam, with their utter disgust for death, and religiously motivated readiness for self-sacrifice. In that cultural area of theirs, we have nothing to win."
Lebed was MIA three times and declared KIA one time. The Pandjir Valley until today is scattered with wrecks of the Soviet tank attack. reports vary, but it is said they lost up to 200-300 APCs and tanks there in an offensive to fight down the resistance there set up by Schah-Massud. After catastrophic losses, the russians were defeated unconditionally.
Warlords today have much more modern weapons and ATGMs. If they would want to do it, they could take Kabul and Karzai not being able to do anything about it but running.
More democracy in Egypt led to a rise of the Muslim bortherhood'S influence. Democracy in the Palestinian territories led to the Hamas in power. Democracy in Iran led to Ahmadinejadh. The Taleban are already more popular in Afghanistan tha n the Americans and their idealism. Sounds absurd, but is true. and Iraq: democracy would lead to a splitting of the country into three de facto soveign provinces (a red rag for Turkey concerning the Kurdish sector), and Iran taking the chance to boolster it's position and push against the Saudis.
Anyone else wanting to give them "democracy"? Anyone else thinking we could even afford that?
agreed:up:
and there we have the real nub of the problem...and why at the moment of truth we render our selves to be hypocritical...because WE don't believe in democracy..not "them" but "we" are the problem...it comes down to what do we want...? if we cannot even be clear about that..then it really IS hopeless...how can any other country give us what WE want..if we do not even know ourselves...
some body some where had better start telling the truth before we all die of propoganda overdoses....one may as well try to swat flys with a hammer..
either way round there are risks....stay get one set of risks... leave get another...
meantime more are killed on both sides...
it is a maze...but they knew that BEFORE ..so why do it? to win an election?
it's insane..:damn:
maybe Iraq isn't the only place that could do with a spot of regime change...what ever we do we need to put a whole lot more thought into it from now on...cos what were doing now is medievil..and it aint working
bradclark1
10-12-07, 12:04 PM
Everything will remain the same until we change presidents. Thats all we are waiting for. Loss of life doesn't matter.
Skybird
10-12-07, 01:48 PM
Everything will remain the same until we change presidents. Thats all we are waiting for. Loss of life doesn't matter.
1. I am far from sure that the next president will be a democrat.
2. I am far from convinced that democat's Iraq and Afghanistan policy will be substantially better. Their understanding of both places seem to be as flawed and minimal as that of the Bush gang. Hillary and Obama did not really set examples for educational enlightenment on both matters. same for the republican possible candidates as fas as I am aware of them (and that awareness is not complete).
waste gate
10-12-07, 03:05 PM
Maybe if other nation's militarys were a bit more serious........
As members of the German Bundestag prepare to decide whether to extend the German military's mission in Afghanistan, reports of alcoholism and irresponsible behavior by commanders of Germany's "Kommando Spezialkräfte" elite unit are coming to light.
Skybird
10-12-07, 05:26 PM
Maybe if other nation's militarys were a bit more serious........
Maybe if other nation's policies would pick it's wars more wisely...
As members of the German Bundestag prepare to decide whether to extend the German military's mission in Afghanistan, reports of alcoholism and irresponsible behavior by commanders of Germany's "Kommando Spezialkräfte" elite unit are coming to light.
Skybird thread productions proudly presents:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=122961&highlight=Afghanistan+beer
waste gate
10-12-07, 05:44 PM
Maybe if other nation's policies would pick it's wars more wisely...
This comes from a man whose country started, not one, but two world wars.
And now has the hubris to counsel others as to how to protect his second world nation. Come on man stop. Your opinion is laughable at the very least.
BTW the quote I noted before came from your post on the German military. If you wish to disengauge your position now it wouldn't suprise me. You usually contradict youreslf within your own posts.
Skybird
10-12-07, 06:58 PM
Maybe if other nation's policies would pick it's wars more wisely...
This comes from a man whose country started, not one, but two world wars.
And now has the hubris to counsel others as to how to protect his second world nation. Come on man stop. Your opinion is laughable at the very least.
BTW the quote I noted before came from your post on the German military. If you wish to disengauge your position now it wouldn't suprise me. You usually contradict youreslf within your own posts.
This comes from a man whose killing argument always is to go back in history by a 60+ years to prohibit any opposing comment, and who obviously never learned that the second world war is over, the Allies won, and the Third Reich was totally crushed - you give me all reason to laugh even louder.
What to do next, WG? The same old ways as always? Some provoking educational lessons, maybe? More accusing of Germans not being eternally thankful until the end of time and not willing to be your obedient and admiring vasalls, as usual? Or reiterating one more time that all French are cowards? And insisting one more time that Iraq and Afghanistan will be won if one only fights long enough, and if one does not win, it is the evil slimy immoral democrat's fault, or the Europeans fault, or everybody else' fault - but not yours while having started it against all advise and healthy reason?
Gah, play alone this time. Wer nicht hören will, muß fühlen. Even at least a 2/3 majority of your own people at home does not want to hear such propaganda anymore. And I don't want it either. At least Germany has learned something from it's wartime past. You are dumb enough to make the same mistakes over and over and over again.
:>Logoff......
bradclark1
10-12-07, 07:33 PM
Everything will remain the same until we change presidents. Thats all we are waiting for. Loss of life doesn't matter.
1. I am far from sure that the next president will be a democrat.
It doesn't matter what the next presidents party will be. Drastic changes will happen.
Skybird
10-13-07, 02:21 AM
Changes: yes. drastic: I'll believe it when I see it. Concerning Iraq and Afghnaistan, options are limited. Neither will there be an additional 200+ thousand troops being send, nor a massive pullout.
Well isn't that one of the problems I have already stated. We, as in NATO, lack the forces, in order to provide economic and physical security in Afghanistan. Therefore, those forces which are able to provide those two securities in Afghanistan are able to gain influence over the populace. And in the present eyes of the populace, anti-government and Taleban forces appear to be providing a better job then government or NATO forces.
Therefore, in order to provide those two securities would we not need more boots on the ground, and more focus economic aid and revitilization to the populace?
And would you not agree that if we were able to provide the two securities which I have stated that the populace would be more apt to be positively influenced by government and coalition forces?
baggygreen
10-13-07, 10:13 AM
My vote for afghanistan? leave, fly drones and satellites over constantly and every time you see guys carrying guns, blow em up!
/silliness
its way too difficult to win the way its being fought at the moment. Its probably even impossible at the moment. This type of war and fighting is only going to become more commonplace in the future, and we'll lose every time unless the way we fight changes.
because of the way the enemy fights there are going to be civilian casualties. there is no getting around that. the media wont like it, left-leaners wont like it, hell even i wont like it, but if we're to win any future wars of this type its going to happen. At the moment there is simply too much pussyfooting around. eventually there will be a need to demolish a building with a lone sniper, to make sure you get him.
Its gonna have to get rough, because otherwise we're up the proverbial creek.
Previous successful COIN operations has included several things:
1) Providing a continuous security dominance in any population center of consequence
2) Controlling the routes of movement to inhibit insurgency forces from having impact on those population centers
3) Creating a network of government and infastructure services which the populace uses. This allows the government to gain the trust of the people.
4) Provide economic growth programs which betters the life of the populace, thus allowing the government to grow the trust of the populace.
Skybird
10-14-07, 03:26 PM
Well isn't that one of the problems I have already stated. We, as in NATO, lack the forces, in order to provide economic and physical security in Afghanistan. Therefore, those forces which are able to provide those two securities in Afghanistan are able to gain influence over the populace. And in the present eyes of the populace, anti-government and Taleban forces appear to be providing a better job then government or NATO forces.
Therefore, in order to provide those two securities would we not need more boots on the ground, and more focus economic aid and revitilization to the populace?
And would you not agree that if we were able to provide the two securities which I have stated that the populace would be more apt to be positively influenced by government and coalition forces?
Not really. We are no Afghans, we would continue to be foreigners. Forever. an old saying over there says: "you can't buy an Afghan - you can only lease him for a limited time." Treaties do not really mean anything in Afghan history, and almost always ended in treachery. Aliances have changed so very often during the Soviet war that it is hard to count them anymore. And even during the occupation, sometimes tribes were fighting against each other, and ageinst the Soviets at the same time.
All this academic taling only. There is nobody willing to go into Afghanistan with a six digit number of forces and much more than a 1 at the beginning. also, there is nobody with the will to confront Pakistan. that is all we need to know.
Previous successful COIN operations has included several things:
1) Providing a continuous security dominance in any population center of consequence
2) Controlling the routes of movement to inhibit insurgency forces from having impact on those population centers
3) Creating a network of government and infastructure services which the populace uses. This allows the government to gain the trust of the people.
4) Provide economic growth programs which betters the life of the populace, thus allowing the government to grow the trust of the populace.
All nice and well, but you oversee one thing, as I repeatedly have expressed now in this thread, and in others as well. Afghanistan is Afghanistan, not a Western experimental lab expected to prove Western theories of reason and logic - your concept works for some places in the world, but not for all. It depends on the culture. If you sow living seed on a poisened field, what do you get...? Rich harvest, or hunger? Afghanistan is not only Islamic, it alos is a very xenophobic, closed, tribal society. Two stories shall illustrate both statments. First, I think from the time of the soviet invasion, there was the event of a landslide at the border to Pakistan. Pakistani, as a matter of fact, were and are regarded as hoistiles and outsiders by most Afghans, like all foreigners. You know what the closest village community did? The men came together with wooden sticks and tried to push rocks that have moved from evil Pakistan to the Afghan side of the border back into the land of Satan where they had come from. they did not dare to touch them with their hands, so that they would not be doomed by having touched Satan.
second story, from the time during the great Tsunami, it was not Afghanistan, but I think Pakistan - correct me if I am wrong - definitely it was a Muhammedan country in that region. A column of trucks with aid reached a village, whose inhbaitants had been told by their Mullah that they shall move up a hill and stay there, for Satan was near, and Allah already had shown his wrath by having send the Tsunami. noiw there were the trucks dowhn that hill, and uphill where the poeple, hungry, ill, since days without supply. And they did not come down that hill to unload the trucks. No further comment. The trucks stayed for days, wasting precious time to dleiver the goods where they would have been wanted, and they wasted time, for they were not usable for the duration of this halt. So in the end, somwehre else people died from disease and lack of water and hunger, and cold, becasue the trucks were not called back and redirected.
Nice theory with netwroks and infrastructure and contorlling this and that, but you underestimate the nature of resitance you are up against, and you also do not see that no nation has the will to get these things done (and most really could not do it anyway), and that the Kabulistan givenment never has been in that strong position you would lkike to see it in. That's why they call it Kabulistan - to make clear that Kabul is an entitiy of limited self-adminsitration and power in itself which has no significant meaning and influence beyond it's city walls. And it has been like this since very very long. No government ever weas able to hold itself there without the tribe leaders allowing that. When Najibullah was left alone by the Soviet military, his days were already counted, and he ended dead.It will be the same with Karzai the moment foreign powers in Kabul do no longer massively protect and support him.
Gainign control, establish natworks and infrastructure? you could kill as many Talebans as youn want - this conflict will not be determined by taleban losses, not a bit. It is close to meaningless and causes delays in their actions, at best. Manwhile, they win the war by denying there defeat to America, and outmanouvering America by othe rmeans. And every single collateral damage being done by American forces means more vows for blood feud, and more hostility against Western troops.
You are simply unrealistic by being too rational and too idealistic, Jalu. even more so since the situation was allowed for 5 years to substantially and constantly detoriate. I said somewhere that after 2002 all military focus should have been left with Afghanistan instead of being shifted to Iraq, and that massive and quick civilian support should have been given. But even if it would have been that ideal, I wouldn't have read the chances for success higher than 49:51 - at best. and today: for example Germany budget structure has shifted massively: we know spend 4/5 of the Afghnaisdtan budget on maintaining a military presence there, and only 1/5 is left to be used for aid and reconstruction projects. Not to the exact numbers, but with the general tendency it has been with all nations who got themselves engaged in Afghanistan - na dann mal Prost.
You also have another enemy to your model: the geography and uncontrollable terrain in many parts of the country. the British failed in controlling traffic, in fact the saw a whole modern and competently trained collonial army getting massacred. The Soviets failed, and faced high losses, and defeat whenever they dared to move outside their bastions. The Americans failed as well. Pakistan failed, too, but that is another story anyway.
I could also argue that at least one can debate that your reasonable model, which is very much the UN model, is working in a place that is much closer too us: the Balkans, namely Bosnia, and Kosovo. We do not really solve the problems there, it seems, all we acchieve is to keep growing tensions and pressure under control for the time being. But since the basic ethnic, historic and religous problems do not get solved, the pressure is rising. So in the future... go figure. It is already being carried over to the next generation.
But is it not possible for societies to change, even if it takes a generation or two for the changes to take hold?
I see your point that no nation, or group of nations, currently have the willpower to invest the troops and aid workers, and funds that are needed to really make an impact . . . but that doesn't mean that it's not possible . . . unlikely, granted . . . but possible.
If no society ever changes . . . then as a species we are doomed to create our own demises.
Reminds me of a book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29)that has been critically acclaimed.
Skybird
10-14-07, 07:20 PM
But is it not possible for societies to change, even if it takes a generation or two for the changes to take hold?
I see your point that no nation, or group of nations, currently have the willpower to invest the troops and aid workers, and funds that are needed to really make an impact . . . but that doesn't mean that it's not possible . . . unlikely, granted . . . but possible.
If no society ever changes . . . then as a species we are doomed to create our own demises.
what should I say. Afghanistan has not seen substantial changes since centuries. Islam is stagnating in it's "theology" since 14 centuries. Patriarchalic tribal stuctures exist since millenias. and you talk about the modern present changing all that - in one or two generations, and with a perception of the West as being decadent, arrogant, and lieing, as the great handicap?
I indeed conclude that judging by the fact that we willingly repeat the same mistakes from the past over and over again, that we do not learn from them as a species, or a community, or society. Individuals are capable to learn. societies are not. They are repeating the same cycles time and again, it seems. as a Spanish sage once has said, I think it was Santayana: "There is nothing new under the sun - except what has been forgotten."
Skybird
10-27-07, 07:22 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-513034,00.html
As is known, i am pessimistic about the project of democracy in countries like Afghanistan. However, the article gives some good summary on the current constellation of powers and factors over there.
In the summer of 2006, the British security briefings estimated that there were 1,000 Taliban fighters in the southern Helmand province. Since April 2006, at least 600 fighters have been killed according to estimates by soldiers deployed in the area -- but the enemy front has still not collapsed. The reservoir of religiously inspired cannon fodder in the region seems inexhaustible.
So, are negotiations with the Taliban unavoidable? Should the West accept an Afghan government that includes extremist murderers and enemies of democracy? President Karzai recently proposed just that, even offering Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar direct negotiations -- an offer that was made just hours after the Taliban had perpetrated the most devastating attack in Kabul in years.
The prompt rejection of the offer was hardly a surprise. The real Taliban, with their shuras (councils) in Quetta, Pakistan, and in the ancestral territory of Waziristan, are not prepared to negotiate. The future likewise holds little promise in that regard. Why should they be content with a third of the pie when they could, in the end, have all of it for themselves?
With their war chest filled to the brim with drug money and with strong groups of supporters in both Afghanistan's neighbor states and in the Gulf states, they can still hold out a long time. It is a dangerous mix that feeds international terrorism
(...)
Berlin had dispatched only 42 police instructors to Afghanistan. A hundred times that number is needed. Until recently, the Germans trained future police officers only in Kabul. But the Afghan police forces in the provinces have neither the vehicles nor the gasoline to travel to Kabul in order to attend training courses. Most importantly, no police officer can afford to stay away for weeks or even months from the family he must provide for.
Germany -- the so-called "lead nation" -- has spent €12 million ($17 million) a year on the police program and trained 19,000 policemen in five years. The target for next year is 82,000. Now the German government wants to double the budget for the program.
If the mission in Afghanistan is to succeed, then efforts going far beyond what is currently being discussed need to be made. General McNeill recently told his military colleagues at an exclusive meeting at ISAF's headquarters in Kabul that he needs 160,000 troops in order to make the country safe. His colleagues were astonished -- but he was dead serious.
But more than just additional military force is required. Afghanistan needs thousands of engineers, police instructors, economists and agricultural experts. What is also perhaps needed is recognition that, as unpleasant as that may be, there will be no progress without cooperation with Afghanistan's neighbors: Iran, Russia and also China.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.