Afghanistan

[JALU3]

Let me first say that when I was in, I did not have the priviledge to "go downrange" to "the sandbox". However, that doesn't mean, even though I am no longer in, that I don't have a vested interest in what is occuring there, or that I am no longer interested. If anything, I am still more connected then most in my country (seeing how only a small segment of the population actually has a direct connection to someone who serves, or is serving overseas), with family still wearing the uniform. With that said I thought I would bring up to everyone's attention to related articles regarding present US activities in Afghanistan.

The first is regarding General Perteaus' recent comments regarding the long term solution to the present situation in Afghanistan. (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/ap_petraeus_speech_031409/)

The second is about an individual who lost their life, in many ways, looking for the solution that General Perteaus was talking about (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/ap_dangerousman1_031409w/) (link fixed).

This is only a continuation of the Great Game, in an area that has defied outside definition, and force for hundreds of years.
Read. Comment. Discuss.

I hope that I can start this, as I haven't seen any threads in a while, that discuss the present situation in Afghanistan without it devolving into the usual 2 side of a coin yelling that many threads here in General become. Rather, all opinions are welcome, for in the end, any solution will most effect those who attempt to bring it about and the people in that land half a world away from where I post thus,

[CaptainHaplo]

Jalus - the second link is the same as the first one. I have my own views and will share them in light of both articles you have asked us to read.

[Platapus]

The questions I would like to ask President Obama are the same questions I would have liked to ask President Bush.

1. What is the objective of US involvement in Afghanistan?
2. How will we measure progress with regard to this objective?
3. What is the exit criteria? (for both success and failure)

[CaptainHaplo]

Well that was an interesting read to say the least. Thanks Jalus.

Contrasting the two is interesting, as the intelligencia maintain there are ethical flaws in the concept, while the military is looking for any "leverage" they can use to be more efficient. I would counter saying that there are MORAL flaws in not trying to understand the various facets of the culture your dealing with. Failing to do so costs lives unnecessarily. What I found most enlightening however, was not what the second article said - but what it DID NOT say. It did not share the facts around this man's death. Was it in the course of him pursuing data? Was it an IED or firefight? We don't know. So part of the equation is missing.

Ultimately I think the problem here is one of misplaced purpose. You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who are "in the crossfire" - because your presence puts them in danger that they would not face otherwise. Though your absence would simply trade one danger for anther. There are two sides to this - a military question and a humanitarian question. One must take precedence, and right now that has not happened. The military is even now, looking to balance the two, when they are equipped to answer only one.

As Petreus said, he feels the military needs more resources (read men, money and munitions) to "help stabilize" the government. But thats not a surge..... Its not the military's role to build a civil infrastructure - but they are tasked with it. It is the military's role to subdue, by any means necessary, elements that would threaten the goals we seek to achieve. The whole problem with this war is its being dealt with - with one hand tied behind the military's back. That is the biggest similiarity with Vietnam.

To win means hard choices - and thus the long term problems will remain in the middle east because no one is willing to answer the hard questions with real - hard answers.

[Skybird]

Ultimately I think the problem here is one of misplaced purpose. You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who are "in the crossfire" - because your presence puts them in danger that they would not face otherwise. Though your absence would simply trade one danger for anther. There are two sides to this - a military question and a humanitarian question. One must take precedence, and right now that has not happened. The military is even now, looking to balance the two, when they are equipped to answer only one.

As Petreus said, he feels the military needs more resources (read men, money and munitions) to "help stabilize" the government. But thats not a surge..... Its not the military's role to build a civil infrastructure - but they are tasked with it. It is the military's role to subdue, by any means necessary, elements that would threaten the goals we seek to achieve. The whole problem with this war is its being dealt with - with one hand tied behind the military's back. That is the biggest similiarity with Vietnam.

To win means hard choices - and thus the long term problems will remain in the middle east because no one is willing to answer the hard questions with real - hard answers.

:yep: :yeah:

[NeonSamurai]

Nicely summed up Haplo

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh good lord - its the end of subsim as we know it - Skybird and me agree!

Actually - it just goes to show how mature this forum is in many ways. So many different views, but we all take each issue as its own. Good to see from us all.

BTW Skybird - I may want a rematch in the future at some point! :woot:

[Skybird]

Oh good lord - its the end of subsim as we know it - Skybird and me agree!

Actually - it just goes to show how mature this forum is in many ways. So many different views, but we all take each issue as its own. Good to see from us all.

BTW Skybird - I may want a rematch in the future at some point! :woot:
You will suffah !

And on agreeing, I realised some time ago that actually we agree on more details of things than you might be aware of. Although not on all.

[Max2147]

Statements like this one from Patreus in the linked article are absolutely astounding: "The secretary of defense and I are among the biggest champions with members of Congress for increasing the resourcing for the State Department and the Agency for International Development."

The Secretary of ______ NEVER advocates for an increased budget for another government department. They always fight each other tooth and nail for every last dollar. It's even more astounding when you remember that Gates was a Bush appointee, and that State and Defense clashed in a huge way during Bush's first term.

These kinds of statements from Gates and Patreus show that our military gets it. They know they can't solve all our country's national security problems like they were asked to do during the last administration. They badly need help from other parts of the US government. The lack of that help is getting American soldiers killed.

The folks in Washington need to wake up and increase the State Department's resources and expand their mission in a big way.

[baggygreen]

Why do that Max, when throwing a few additional troops in for a bit and then being open to negotiating with terrorists will get you the resolution you're after.

Its cheaper, too, because you can score political points.

Half the problem is there are too many namby pambys who won't let our military forces fight a flipping war properly!

[JALU3]

I wish that US leaders, military, and non-military would have read up on the COIN operations of the past that had worked for those on the non-insurgent side, prior and during the two most recent major conflicts that the US were involved in. If they did they would have realized the tremendous undertaking that we were to get into, and not underestimate the needs (force size, equipment, etc.) or see it in a one dimensional way (being primarily military), which lead to the prolonging and growth of the insurgency period that we have seen in both conflicts. Particularly that of the Philippine Insurrection/Philippine-American War. Although there were actions within that conflict that would not be acceptable in the modern era, which some believe are exaggerated (I am talking about the claims of War Crimes (particular those caused by the US)); it is my opinion that those events were not the common action of all US forces involved.
As with all COIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency) operations, area defense and control is only one part of the equation to success. As has been said, this is primarily a military activity which it is use to, and trained to be able to handle. However, as is known in COIN, there is no 100% garuntee of this security, as long as the populace view the insurgency in a positive light, or as the only alternative. Therefore, I think that this is the part that although well documented by academia is clearly missing, in Afghanistan at least, in the present US major conflicts.
In many ways what the individual in the second article was doing was attempting to remove that element. That is the element that increases the understanding of the military and non-military COIN operators, and providing a positive alternative to the populace than that of supporting the insurgency. In the Philippine-American War, that was done by showing that the actions of the Insurgency (the remanents of the First Republic) only furthered themselves, and not the populace, and that support of the American Administration was a better alternative. The Thomasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomasites), were part of that effort. Their efforts, those who followed, and the many soldiers who became community buildiers and teachers, are a large part why the Insurgency, which was for the most part the educated land owning elite, failed.

[Tribesman]

Half the problem is there are too many namby pambys who won't let our military forces fight a flipping war properly!
The Russians and British didn't have that namby pamby problem in Afghanistan , they pulled out all the stops and went real total war on the country ...they still couldn't win though .
Now it might be said that the Russians did get a result in Chechen conflict by fighting a flipping war properly without the namby pamby worries ,but the real result was that they bought off many of their former enemies and installed them as little warlord dictators because they couldn't achieve anything else .

[Max2147]

Half the problem is there are too many namby pambys who won't let our military forces fight a flipping war properly!
Our military isn't all-powerful. They have tremendous capabilities, but they also have limitations. Military force alone, no matter how unrestrained, can't win this conflict. Both Patreus (who literally wrote the book on COIN operations) and Gates recognize this. Patreus isn't going around asking to change the rules of engagement, he's asking for more non-military help.

A few months ago I went to an event where one of my US Senators was present. A serviceman who had recently returned from Afghanistan told the Senator about the problems our military was having there. A US officer would meet with an Afghan local leader and basically ask him "is there anything you want us to do?" The officer would expect the local leader to say something like "Yes, there's some bad guys over there who are giving us trouble, we'd love it if you killed them." The US military is very capable of doing that.

Instead, the local Afghan leader would say "Could you help us fix our sewer system?" That put the US soldiers in a tough situation. They really wanted to help the Afghanis, but none of the soldiers knew how to fix a sewer system, and there was nobody else they could call in for help. So their attempt to please the Afghanis would instead leave the Afghanis disappointed.

That's why our military needs help. There are lots of jobs that need to be done in Afghanistan that our military can't do.