Quagmire...

[SteamWake]

That word was bandied about quite a bit during the Bush administration.

I find it a fitting description as to the situation in Afghanistan which BTW according to campaign promises would be "the focus on the war on terror".



"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in afour-page letter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447) to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447

[GoldenRivet]

GIGGIDY

[OneToughHerring]

Another bloodiest month, 58 US soldiers dead in Afghanistan. Two helicopters fell recently and today 8 US soldiers died.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/afghan.deaths/index.html

[AVGWarhawk]

I think Afghanistan will be much worse than Iraq could ever be. It is a tough situation.

[GoldenRivet]

mismanaged from the beginning... still mismanaged today.

i dont know what i would do any differently, i didnt go to west point... but i can tell you this, Obama needs to crap or get off the pot with this Afghanistan situation.

there are too great a percentage of the population over there who view Bin Laden as a hero... they could search for decades and never find him.

and we all know that the war in Afghanistan reaches across several borders into Pakistan for example.

If we cant be in it to win it... we shouldnt be in it at all IMHO

[AVGWarhawk]

Truly, I think we ain't seen nothing yet concerning Afghanistan. This time we really on their turf and they understand their turf very well.

[Oberon]

Afghanistan has a history of bloodying people it doesn't want. Took the Brits two goes to get it done in our prime, the Soviets failed and now the Coalition is failing too.
The problem is, well, in my limited eyes anyway, there is no clear set goal in Afghanistan. The War on Terror is a war on a phrase, it makes no sense. Pakistan doesn't help either, although at least it actually seems to be trying now but it's not very well equipped to deal with the problem.

The main problem is the perception of war and the global media. If this had taken place say a hundred years ago, the Times would be reporting the odd casualty in Kabul periodically, and it would be an 'ongoing concern' of the Empire (be it British or American).
Now, however, every death is a national disaster, be it civilian or military, coalition forces are so handtied to limit collateral damage that they cannot fight a war because the second they kill one Afghan child, it will be all over CNN, BBC and Al'Jazerra like a hot rash, and thus back home, the populations opinion about the war will swing against it the more they witness dead children in the news and thus it will be harder for the government to send resources to the forces without losing face.
Occupations are nothing new, I mean, how long were the British in India? But there's a great need to call it something other than an occupation to push away that image of the 'bad old days' of the Empires subjegating the world to their will.

What also doesn't help is the financial situation. Governments can't spend the money on their armed forces that they need to (Britain, I'm looking at you) because for every single dollar they assign to the military, someone will scream that babies in Intensive Care units are dying because the government spent that dollar on a tank when it should have spent it on the ICU. Guns or butter, the age old question.

I'm rambling well tonight... :hmmm:

[SteamWake]

I'm sorry but isnt the goal of a war is to win it?

Are you saying that if america threw its might into the regoin it would be brutal and bloody with alot of innocent lives lost but they would not be triumphant?

But we are not brutal barbarians and strive to only eliminate the bad guys.

Other aveneus are in process but should not be talked about.

The article I posted about the drones the other day in that the thrust of the article was "winning the hearts and minds". Thats a very important aspect.

The enemy has sensed the hesitation and weakness to committ and have stepped things up obvious by the recent headlines.

The time has come and a decision must be made.

News I heard today paraphrasing 'Obama to have 1st of the last meetings on Friday"... kid you not.

Finally on top of everything else commanders and aids in the theater are beginning to ask 'what are we doing here'.

No answser comes.

[AVGWarhawk]

The problem is, well, in my limited eyes anyway, there is no clear set goal in Afghanistan.


A set of goals or not, the coalition is fighting on the enemies playground. They know the terrain, the climate and layout. Remember the American history of the Red Coats fighting the Colonists? Here we have fresh guys off the boat from England. They are not familiar with the terrain and layout. Furthermore, they are walking in the woods with RED COATS! The Colonists are in their work clothing. Normally brown. They know the terrain and layout. Also, they had a lot to fight and protect. That in itself create enough drive to win a war. Not a wonder those soldiers in bright red coats lost. So really, what is our desire to fight for the folks over there? Granted, I would go if asked but would my heart be in it? Not by a long shot.

[Tribesman]

Remember the American history of the Red Coats fighting the Colonists?
So who are the French fleet in the Afghanistan mess?

[Oberon]

Oh, I agree with both points raised, we are in a major disadvantage in terms of home knowledge, not only is it a different landscape but a different religion, society, everything, and it's little wonder that the enemy exploits this.
If America threw its might into the region, rolled up its sleeves and used its full resources, it would be a bloodbath, I agree, and lots of innocent lives would be lost. However, a lot of uninnocent lives would be lost too, and at that point it would be heads or tails.
Heads, the country is so winded by the attack that it rolls over and shuts down
Tails, the country is so pissed off by the attack that it all gets ten times worse.
And knowing Afghanistans history, it would most likely fall Tails every single time.

Hearts and minds are all well and good, but they need to be protected by arms and guns or as soon as the Coalition rolls out, the Taliban will just roll in and threaten to kill anyone who disagrees with their 'Hearts and minds'.

It's a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. There does not seem to be a clear 'Win' strategy in such a war if you goal is to win it, as surely the goal of winning a war is to defeat your enemy. The Taliban is not defeated, and many are wondering how far they are from being defeated. As an administrator, I would guess that one would have to balance the goal of 'winning the war' against the war weariness created by the longevity of said war.

[SS107.9MHz]

I'm sorry but isnt the goal of a war is to win it?

No answser comes.


Well and in this case what would be considered "winning" then?

[Tribesman]

Well and in this case what would be considered "winning" then?

The main problem with "winning" is that nowadays they havn't got the faintest idea who it is they are fighting.
Like that diplomat says they are fighting people in neighbouring valleys who have nothing to do with each other at all.
The wasted opertunity has allowed the conflict to devolve into thousands of seperate wars which will all have to be dealt with before they can deal with the real war that they should have dealt with years ago.

[SteamWake]

The main problem with "winning" is that nowadays they havn't got the faintest idea who it is they are fighting.
Like that diplomat says they are fighting people in neighbouring valleys who have nothing to do with each other at all.
The wasted opertunity has allowed the conflict to devolve into thousands of seperate wars which will all have to be dealt with before they can deal with the real war that they should have dealt with years ago.

Speaking of dealing with things years ago.

Do you feel it would have been any different if Clinton had grabbed Bin Laden when he was offered?

[Oberon]

Speaking of dealing with things years ago.

Do you feel it would have been any different if Clinton had grabbed Bin Laden when he was offered?

I think so, and I'm more a Democrat than a Republican. However, would it have prevented 9/11? Probably not, although it might have pushed it back a few years as Al'Qaeda reorganised. Al'Qaeda, after all, is not a snake, it is a Hydra, you may hurt it when you chop off one head and it might recoil, but there are still plenty of heads left.

[Platapus]

I have the same questions for President Obama that I had for President Bush.

1. What is the objective in the AF conflict?

2. How will we measure progress/lack of progress toward those objectives?

3. What is the exit criteria for success/failure?

If you read SJ Resolution 23 "Authorization for use of military force", Congress authorized the use of military action but did not state any objectives!!

How can you start a war with no idea how or when to end it???

[CaptainHaplo]

You can't win a war when you fail to understand the enemy.

You can't win a war when your more concerned about being politically correct.

You can't win a war when your not willing to fight it as a war.

You can't win a war when you refuse to identify who your enemy is.

You can't win a war when you allow the enemy to masquerade as your friend.

Both Bush and Obama failed to comprehend these principles. Thus it will remain a mess.

[Letum]

GIGGIDY

I facepalmed and lol'ed because I wasn't the only one.

[SteamWake]

Ms. Clinton 'puzzled' at Pakistan's goverment lack of knowledge.


LAHORE, Pakistan (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's said on Thursday it was "hard to believe" that no one in Pakistan's government knew where al Qaeda leaders were hiding, striking a new tone on a trip where Washington's credibility has come under attack.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091029/pl_nm/us_pakistan_usa

[CaptainHaplo]

I can't understand why she would be puzzled. After all, she didn't know all those gifts were under her bed or wherever they were......

She should know, it happens? I mean, like she said then, whats the big deal, right?