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......

It doesn't matter what the next presidents party will be. Drastic changes will happen.

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?

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.

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.

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 that has been critically acclaimed.

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."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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.