Obama begins buildup in Afghanistan

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: yllus
Realistically, Afghanistan can never be tamed. A few cities in the nation can be patrolled day and night and the citizens inside protected for the most part, but the vast majority of the country is harsh terrain which has been controlled by nobody for as long as the human race has existed.

The only positive endgame in that theatre of war is to industrialize and enrich the urban parts of the country enough to tempt those in the mountains to come down and abandon their productive rocks-and-IED farming career. Then hand control over to the Afghanis themselves while keeping a few bases here and there to launch quick strikes as needed on the Afghan-Pakistani border, which will never be safe. Should take ten or twenty years if we start immediately.
How is babby formed?

You scare me.

Originally posted by: Pocatello
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: yllus
Realistically, Afghanistan can never be tamed. A few cities in the nation can be patrolled day and night and the citizens inside protected for the most part, but the vast majority of the country is harsh terrain which has been controlled by nobody for as long as the human race has existed.

The only positive endgame in that theatre of war is to industrialize and enrich the urban parts of the country enough to tempt those in the mountains to come down and abandon their productive rocks-and-IED farming career. Then hand control over to the Afghanis themselves while keeping a few bases here and there to launch quick strikes as needed on the Afghan-Pakistani border, which will never be safe. Should take ten or twenty years if we start immediately.

Oh it could be tamed overnight, the West is just not willing to adopt Taliban Methodolgy and nuances and why we are spinning our wheels.

Right, we have to kill them to save them. As much as I hate the Talibans, we have to negotiate with them, maybe not now but later on. I don't see the US winning this war through military means. I think Pres Obama has recognized this. The Talibans are the people in Southern Afghanistan and bordering Pakistan, they're not going to convert into something we want. The Talibans have stated they no longer support Al-Queda, they have lost a great deal because of their ties to Al-Queda (spelled wrong, I think), while Al-Queda just moved on to some where else, like Pakistan. We still have to remember who orchestrated the 9/11 attack, they weren't Afghans or Iraqis, something that George Bush had conveniently forgotten.

Before we negotiate we need to bring a strong hand to the card table, or our bluff will rightly be called. Here we're starting the necessary buildup required to negotiate from a position of strength.

This is what your new President was talking about when he mentioned using military strength to augment diplomacy instead of it being the other way around.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Sadly, I think too many in the USA have any perspective on addressing the Afghan problem. Or understand what the Afghan people need. Or really understand that we have the same basic problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, namely an issue of governmentance in war time.

What we are really fighting, in both Iraq and Afghanistan is anarchy, anarchy, and anarchy. Something that its hard for the USA to relate to, even during our revolutionary war, our war of 1812, our civil war, we never had to deal with those problems. Because the rule of law basically went on during those conflicts in our case.

But both the Iraqi and Afghan case is somewhat analogous to what happened to much of Europe after Rome and the Roman armies that kept the rule of law fell in the 4'th century AD. And what happened was anarchy followed by the locale populace rally around various strong men. Leading to governance by feudalism that lasted about a thousand years. Going through many stages that finally led to the formations of Modern States.

Iraq as a country has a fairly short history of less than a century, as a country that never should have been, cobbled together out of the left over bits of the failed Ottoman empire, with three large ethic groups who did not have compatible interests. And the Saddam Hussein Government was basically the longest lasting government of any of the many governments Iraq had in its brief history. Of course, the Saddam formula
was a brutal police State based on divide and conquer, the decidedly minority Sunnis made out better than most, but Saddam was not above assassinating any Sunni that could become powerful enough to be a rival. And as a result, Iraq had a stable government, certainly not a fair one, but it still functioned fairly effectively, and most Iraqis, when asked, say it worked better and more fairly than what they have today.

When the US invaded in 2003, I think what GWB&co envisioned was a Mr. Potato Head effect, where the existing government stayed basically in tact, and all that was needed was a new head. And instead, the whole government fell along with Saddam. Resulting in instant anarchy with far too few occupying troops to maintain any order. As a result, this empowered all kinds of locals to form thousands of individual power bases and they did. Al-Quida was Jonney come lately and never formed more than 15% of the total Iraqi insurgencies. And now, only in the past year or so, a government under Maliki is finally trying to take the steps to militarily unify Iraq while the insurgents, better armed and supplied than before are gleefully looting the Iraqi and US treasury in an uneasy truce. Since there is little political progress, the prospect of a civil war always lies under the surface.

Afghanistan has almost the opposite but same problem, much of it is little changed since Alexander the Great, and has not had any real stable government in living memory. Nor is it much different than the tribal areas of Pakistan, although the latter, up until now, have been largely spared the anarchy Afghanistan has endured since the Soviets invaded. Of course what followed the Soviet invasion was a the USA training terrorists, we called them freedom fighters, they chased the Russians out, and then those same freedom fighters, started fighting each other as Afghanistan sunk into a civil war that basically empowered various strongmen, war lords, and thugs. Finally, using vicious tactics, the Taliban rose to power, and they at least had a Sharia law based formula that did ensure some sort of fairness in governance. Yes, horrible by Western standards, but still infinitely better than the former governance by warlords and thugs. Then basically unknown to the Taliban, Al-Quida hatched 911.

And Afghanistan is now back to the same conditions that prevailed after the Russians left. And with some 500,000 troops short of enough, Nato has done nothing to provide any effective governance, and after seven years, the Afghan people have lost all faith in the US or Nato to ever do anything. Which is why the Taliban is coming back, because they can at least provide a fair government and stop the thieves and thugs.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
The 9/11 attacks were most likely conceived and plotted by KSM in Pakistan and carried out primarily by militants from Saudi Arabia through a communications hub in Yemen.

Just thought I'd toss that out.

As far as Afghanistan goes our stated intention should be to train their national army and GTFO when two bloody piles of goo are identified as OBL and al Zahwari. Redeploy to a level of 4-6k in theater for special operations and threat assessment (and to keep an eye on TGB)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
We do not even know if Ossama Bin Laden or Zahwari are in Pakistan, and given their track record of secrecy, they would probably go elsewhere long before we can approach being a threat.

In terms of training the Afghan army, they like most of the rest of the Afghan government, are totally corrupt. And because of that corruption, the Afghan people place almost zero faith in it.

But heyheybooboo somewhat proves my point, most on this thread have little perspective to even conceive of the problems, heyheybooboo's solution might work well in the USA, but its a fallacy to assume Afghanistan is anything like the USA.

If the US and Nato dramatically decreases the number of troops deployed, the Taliban would win in very short order.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If the US and Nato dramatically decreases the number of troops deployed, the Taliban would win in very short order.

Win what exactly?
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
If intelligence knows where Bin Laden is, then stocking up in Afghanistan makes sense. Pak needs to be dealt with.
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: alien42
uhhhhh, this is nothing new. Obama clearly and repeatedly stated before the election we would leave Iraq and then clean up the mess Bush left in Afghanistan.

this is good strategy, to make Afghanistan people to realize we aren't hostile, and hopefully reduce the possibility of terrorist attacks and improve relations.

nothing wrong with it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If the US and Nato dramatically decreases the number of troops deployed, the Taliban would win in very short order.

Win what exactly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Taliban would likely become the de facto government in both Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Exactly their goal all along.

Its even possible that Pakistan might be happy to spin off their tribal regions and concentrate on governing their more developed areas.

4-6 K US troops could probably be enough to defend a future US embassy and little else.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Since its been 7 months since this has been talked about, alot has gone on. Obama lifted the ban on showing caskets returning from the middle east, but it doesnt get much press.

Also we are up to 220 deaths in Afghanistan, with 38 this month - more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined. This is the new Iraq.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I watched 60 mins on Sunday and they interviewed the general in charge of operations in Afghanistan. Something in the interview made me do a double take.

When asked if he has spoke to the President he responded yes, once. Is it normal for the commander and chief of the armed forces to talk with the general in a major theater of operations once in 7 months?

I get the feeling the administration doesnt really want to tackle Afghanistan. They want information on troop levels, but only when they ask for it. In other words dont bother us, we will bother you.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
We need more War to stimulate the economy.

We are in the neighborhood, so I nominate Iran. They've got lots of oil and natural gas. We don't need that much opium, anyway.

If that doesn't work we can always invade Venezula. Ditto on the oil and gas.

We can then take out those pesky French.

I like cheese --- :D


 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

wahoo, we get a new president, we begin ramping up a new/old war... yes we have been in afghanistan but we dont need to police the world... wtf..

Get a clue. Al Qaeda... you remember... the guys who actually hit us on 9-11... were holed up in Afghanistan where they were given sanctuary by the Taliban. Going after them, there is the war we were right to pursue, and it's the war we should have, and WOULD have won by now if the EX Traitor In Chief hadn't taken his eye off the ball to pursue his petty ego trip in Iraq.

The threat they pose is still real, and the fact that the Bushwhackos so totally screwed the pooch in every respect just allowed them to regain strength and renew their attacks on us and the rest of the world and made us that much less secure.

one of the few things i agree with Harvey.

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
Yes, we need to concentrate on Afghanistan. If we dumped the soldiers there instead of Iraq, we would at least have a chance at an exit-strategy by now.

Depends on how many civilian casualty you can live with.

They were cornered once, now they are living among the civilian pouplation, they are unmarked and you will not know until an attack takes place.

There is NOTHING you can do, no base to attack, no group leader to be found, no nothing.

There was an opportunity and the US was told as much, they didn't give a fuck, nor did anyone of them believe their own bullsheit of WMD's, they simply needed a war so that you's be scared enough to vote "correctly" again, and you know what, after accomplishing absolutely NOTHING and waging two wars that didn't accomplish ANYTHING you stupid fuckers voted for the twat again.

Can you har the sabre rattling now that Obamas numbers are down, did you notice him threaten Iran?

Fucking politics, i'm so fucking glad i am not a part of that anymore, send your sons and daughters to die for a politicians prestige all you want, but don't call them heroes.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: OCguy
Yes, we need to concentrate on Afghanistan. If we dumped the soldiers there instead of Iraq, we would at least have a chance at an exit-strategy by now.

Depends on how many civilian casualty you can live with.

They were cornered once, now they are living among the civilian pouplation, they are unmarked and you will not know until an attack takes place.

There is NOTHING you can do, no base to attack, no group leader to be found, no nothing.

There was an opportunity and the US was told as much, they didn't give a fuck, nor did anyone of them believe their own bullsheit of WMD's, they simply needed a war so that you's be scared enough to vote "correctly" again, and you know what, after accomplishing absolutely NOTHING and waging two wars that didn't accomplish ANYTHING you stupid fuckers voted for the twat again.

Can you har the sabre rattling now that Obamas numbers are down, did you notice him threaten Iran?

Fucking politics, i'm so fucking glad i am not a part of that anymore, send your sons and daughters to die for a politicians prestige all you want, but don't call them heroes.

I'll call them heroes. They've committed to something greater than themselves, and died in its pursuit. That's a greater sacrifice than I will ever make.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
There is the JOS position in a nutshell with "There is NOTHING you can do, no base to attack, no group leader to be found, no nothing."

Reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld who said there are no good military targets in Afghanistan, so lets go to Iraq.

I always wondered what war was, and now JOS tells us its in making the people hurt by finding the best targets and then blowing them up. In that case, the best case scenario for war is in the US and UK, plenty of excellent targets and all those twats to kill, some one like JOS could happily never run out of targets or employment.

Somewhere in this fast shuffle, what happened to winning hearts and minds, and making their lives better? I had to kill them to save them never computes.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
:confused:


If you are on a "all war is bad" platform, then world politics are not for you.


We have a mission in Afghanistan that was never completed due to the Iraq debacle. There are many people alot smarter than you that agree with this, so I think i'll stay on this side. Thanks.

My stance is this

"all war is bad" but "some war is necessary"


So by "some war", do you count wars that are against people who have harmed us, and plan on continuing to harm us?

So when do you we start the war on the Usa's arm's manufacturers, financial, insurance and pharmaceutical industries?



 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: bamacre
So what exactly are we still doing in Afghanistan, and what exactly is our exit strategy?

Well considering we haven't really done anything there up until now we have a lot to do. Bush really made shit hard for his successor.

How so? We won in iraq, now focus elsewhere. If anything Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise.

WTF :confused:

You can't possibly be serious....Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise? Man you must doing some serious @ss drugs.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
If intelligence knows where Bin Laden is, then stocking up in Afghanistan makes sense. Pak needs to be dealt with.

Meanwhile we have tripled our aid to beloved patriot last week lol
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Why are Muslims in the 3rd world so willing to be terrorists?

http://video.google.com/videop...d=-7932485454526581006
same old, same old
You need honest intelligence to know who your real enemies are!
Cleaning up your own backyard is the greater priority for real change in the world, before you start jumping the into the distractions feed to you by your enemies by the MSM. The true enemy is closer then most want to know.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: bamacre
So what exactly are we still doing in Afghanistan, and what exactly is our exit strategy?

Well considering we haven't really done anything there up until now we have a lot to do. Bush really made shit hard for his successor.

How so? We won in iraq, now focus elsewhere. If anything Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise.

WTF :confused:

You can't possibly be serious....Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise? Man you must doing some serious @ss drugs.

So 9 months into his presidency Obama's inherited war is just as fucked up? Because he hasnt done ANYTHING in Iraq. Since youre implying it IS still just as fucked up, when do you think Obama will get around to cleaning it up?
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Is this war not about using that region for market growth?
And setting up a suharto like leader there?
bin laden is a fake!
Attack Goldman Sachs amongst others, then worry about Afghanistan!
In god we trust!
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
Originally posted by: alien42
uhhhhh, this is nothing new. Obama clearly and repeatedly stated before the election we would leave Iraq and then clean up the mess Bush left in Afghanistan.

Uhhh.. it wasnt obamas plan to leave Iraq. It was Bushs plan all along.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Is this war not about using that region for market growth?
And setting up a suharto like leader there?
bin laden is a fake!
Attack Goldman Sachs amongst others, then worry about Afghanistan!
In god we trust!

go back in your cave akbar
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Why are Muslims in the 3rd world so willing to be terrorists?

http://video.google.com/videop...d=-7932485454526581006
same old, same old
You need honest intelligence to know who your real enemies are!
Cleaning up your own backyard is the greater priority for real change in the world, before you start jumping the into the distractions feed to you by your enemies by the MSM. The true enemy is closer then most want to know.

Funny...I just spoke w/ an Indian not to long ago who was laughing about people that think like this. Sweatshops are indeed terrible places to work, but in the places where they exist often they pay decent by local standards and the other options available to the people there are worse (if there are any).