Surge Afganistan

[Deptacon]

Petraeus , who now is in command of CENTCOM (Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of the middle east theater) has talked repeatedly about surging Afghanistan in the spring... with Brigades the were scheduled to go to Iraq....

This does two things... Reduces troops in Iraq...and puts forward a plan that worked in Iraq (more troops plus the Petraeus approach to counter insurgency)

What do you all think? Especially since it will be Obama's call.... not Bush's call...

While some call Petraeus Bush's boy... I don't believe this...he just happened to be the smartest man in the room at the time... and now proving to be on of the most brilliant Generals since Eisenhower....

I think it is a good idea... and I think it will work. He has proven himself before. I served under him when he was in Iraq...and he ran tight ship and things went smooth and we saw progress when I was there...

 

[OCGuy]

We need 95% of troops out of Iraq, with some going home, and the rest going to Afghanistan for a while.

 

[Deptacon]

95%??? that won't happen for a long time.... regardless of who is the President.... I don't see completely pulling out of Iraq as a "good" thing right away but we are way closer now than a year or 2 ago... but that is another topic.... lets not stray

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
95%??? that won't happen for a long time.... regardless of who is the President.... I don't see completely pulling out of Iraq as a "good" thing right away but we are way closer now than a year or 2 ago... but that is another topic.... lets not stray

Well you cant truly "surge" Afghanistan without taking from Iraq anyway. They are related...

We can either have 2 stale-mates in which one is going to end in disaster no matter when we pull out (Iraq), or cut our losses with one and finish the other (Afghanistan).

 

[Fern]

I don't know much about military matters, but I tend to think that Iraq and Afganistan are two fairly different situations and likely require a somewhat different approach. I think Patraeus has done a very good job, so I support whatever he thinks should be done.

Fern

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Deptacon
95%??? that won't happen for a long time.... regardless of who is the President.... I don't see completely pulling out of Iraq as a "good" thing right away but we are way closer now than a year or 2 ago... but that is another topic.... lets not stray

Well you cant truly "surge" Afghanistan without taking from Iraq anyway. They are related...

We can either have 2 stale-mates in which one is going to end in disaster no matter when we pull out (Iraq), or cut our losses with one and finish the other (Afghanistan).

I think Iraq has made a turn for the positive over the past year and half... and I don't think it will be going back down its old path. ITS OWN GOVT AND PEOPLE...and FINALLY taking ownership of the situation. The situation there...while not peaceful by our standards of living, is substantially better than it has been since we arrived in 2003... and I, at least my own opinion, consider it better in that fact they run there own country...and have the right to vote...like we just did.... than under saddam

I think we will have a 50% - 65% pull or a little more over the next 2 years.... I think that would be the case regardless of who won the election though

We can Surge Iraq with 4 Brigades without reducing troop strength in Iraq...we can use 4 more Brigades anywhere and still sustain the 50-50 rule.... Half home half away.... though this strains the crap out of the military.... and their families

 

[MiniDoom]

I wouldn't want to be a soldier there. Fighting in <10000' mountains in 2' of snow with cloud cover, limiting satellite support. Can drones even fly that high?

 

[bamacre]

I thought Obama was the anti-war president?

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I wouldn't want to be a soldier there. Fighting in <10000' mountains in 2' of snow with cloud cover, limiting satellite support. Can drones even fly that high?

yes....

Maximum Altitude
65,000ft

google "Global Hawk"
Global Hawk - Worlds largest Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

 

[yllus]

I really am doubtful of the "surge" being nearly as effective a tactic in quelling violence as is cutting deals with local Sunni militias. Not that more boots on the ground wouldn't be helpful, but true success seems to stem from Iraqis becoming tired of Al Qaeda blowing up their country in order to score political points against the West.

Edit: For grammar.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: yllus
I really am doubtful of the "surge" being nearly as effective a tactic in quelling violence as is cutting deals with local Sunni militias. Not that more boots on the ground wouldn't be helpful, but true success seems to stem from Iraqis becoming tired of Al Qaeda blowing up their country in order to score political points against the West.

Edit: For grammar.

You are 100% correct.... thats what was really successful... the strategy approach.

But to see that through... we need a constant presence in every neighborhood.... which is why more troops were needed...

Similar approach would work in the Stan, I think, though adjustments would have to be made.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Limited Surge

There is nothing to 'surge' in Afghanistan - we would get bogged down like the Rooskies (and Britain before them).

A 'Concerned Local Warlords' organization might stand a chance, as would negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban.

As with Iraq, the Afghanis need to determine their own destiny. Our men and women are simply targets - as are the locals in Afghanistan.

We can't win flying drones at 60k feet and our rotary aircraft can't fly at high elevations.

 

[feralkid]

If by "Surge" you mean paying off our enemies like we've done in Iraq, I don't think that would work in Afghanistan.


If you mean more troops, better late than never; although the time may well have passed for any real success over there..

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: feralkid
If by "Surge" you mean paying off our enemies like we've done in Iraq, I don't think that would work in Afghanistan.


If you mean more troops, better late than never; although the time may well have passed for any real success over there..

sure........ we just walked in and said here... have this briefcase

don't' spew rhetoric, theories, or bs conspiracy theories

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Limited Surge

There is nothing to 'surge' in Afghanistan - we would get bogged down like the Rooskies (and Britain before them).

A 'Concerned Local Warlords' organization might stand a chance, as would negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban.

As with Iraq, the Afghanis need to determine their own destiny. Our men and women are simply targets - as are the locals in Afghanistan.

We can't win flying drones at 60k feet and our rotary aircraft can't fly at high elevations.

I wasn't implying drones win the war... someone asked the question about drones so I answered.

Troops are not just targets... they talk to local leaders, develop local domestic situations to win favor to successful new govt, investigate suspicious and trouble making individuals in areas, find local anti govt cells, etc.

Soldiers don't just drive around waiting to get shot at...

Afgans are responsible though like you said... but we are duty bound to help them in the right direction... and not leave them to the wolves...

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, the surge as originally outlined by GWB, is and remains a totally busted play, not ready for prime time then, but maybe ready for prime time now. Even in terms of troop numbers, the surge was a mini mini surge. But by luck, prior excellent political progress, piss poor Al-Quida tactics, natural progressions in the Iraqi insurgencies, and for a variety of other reasons, the so called surge coincided with a period of reduced Iraqi on Iraqi violence. And credit where credit is due, Gen Petraeus knew how to take advantage of it in terms of keeping violence at a low level. Sadly, we have made no political progress, the Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever, any any random event could ignite a full fledged civil war. But like Digger the demotofite, the good times keep rolling for the Iraqi insurgencies, and as long as they can keep the Iraqi central government the weak basket case it is, their free merry go round ride may never end while the USA bleeds money keeping the pot lid barely on.

What is especially dangerous is to misread cause and effect, and then proceed to make the dangerous assumptions that what worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan. That combined with the fact that we have some major major surging to do in terms of troop numbers to even reach the pre surge level of troops we had in Iraq. After all, we have only 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan, slightly less than double than in terms of Nato troops, and sadly an Afghan army of 80,000 that is totally corrupt, more of a liability than an asset. And to run a text book military occupation in the more populous Afghanistan will take on the order of 600,000 troops. But if Obama can get Petraeus even 250,000 Nato and US troops, and if Petraeus and Obama can drive a wedge between the Taliban and Al-Quida, while avoiding too many problems in the Tribal areas of Pakistan or with the Pakistani people, stop the opium cultivation that funds the corruption, some real progress is possible if its followed up by economic development in the entire region. A good part of what the US fights in Afghanistan is the very anarchy the US brought back, and much of the appeal in the Taliban lies in the fact that its the only entity in the last 80 years that had any track record of greatly reducing Afghan anarchy.

We can come up with some real humdinger names for strategies, but it still boils down to smart can succeed and stupid always fails. And what GWB&co has done in Afghanistan is almost criminally insane and stupid, a seven year waste of time that has resulted in many deaths and negative progress. In many ways, Afghanistan can be easier than Iraq because we are dealing with a largely homogeneous people in Afghanistan and that is not the case in Iraq with its long history of Shia Sunni Kurdish animosities.

I can share some of Deptacon's optimism, but its going to take a radical departure from past strategy in Afghanistan, we cannot expect our military to do it alone, and time will tell.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever

I don't know where you get your "intel" but that is incorrect...

yours points are good ones...

but the Iraq insurgency is not armed better than ever or even in better shape than ever.

Its almost collapsed except for a few remaining cells and strong groups that hold on. The mass insurgency of a few years ago...is...over.

I have a copy of a letter, a last will, written by an Iraqi Insurgent (Al Qedea) in late 2007, discussing how many of those he was recruited have turned against him, he is low on arms and munitions... etc etc.. We captured it during a raid. He also had a list of cell phone numbers of those who were still "with him"...hehehe yeah it was real good intel.... we tracked everyone of those numbers...

This was just the beginning of their decline...

While you do make some valid points of what the situation in the Stan as well as into how success in Iraq came to be .... Iraq.... is not in bad shape like you make it out to be.... I find it funny that the media has strayed away from Iraq over the past 8 months.... Success is not such good news as failure I guess.

I am not talking out of my ass either.... I was there...and I saw it with my own eyes... Not LEFT....OR RIGHT...News SPEWEAGE

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Limited Surge

There is nothing to 'surge' in Afghanistan - we would get bogged down like the Rooskies (and Britain before them).

A 'Concerned Local Warlords' organization might stand a chance, as would negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban.

As with Iraq, the Afghanis need to determine their own destiny. Our men and women are simply targets - as are the locals in Afghanistan.

We can't win flying drones at 60k feet and our rotary aircraft can't fly at high elevations.

I wasn't implying drones win the war... someone asked the question about drones so I answered.

Troops are not just targets... they talk to local leaders, develop local domestic situations to win favor to successful new govt, investigate suspicious and trouble making individuals in areas, find local anti govt cells, etc.

Soldiers don't just drive around waiting to get shot at...

Afgans are responsible though like you said... but we are duty bound to help them in the right direction... and not leave them to the wolves...

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply anything about the drones. My point (that I didn't make very clear) was that one of our greatest tactical advantages (Apaches and Blackhawks) becomes very limited above 13-14k feet. The 'air' is just too thin ...

I understand that ""Soldiers don't just drive around waiting to get shot at"". I know we make every effort to win 'hearts and minds' but we are dealing with a 'failed state' and culture from the last century - the 19th.

I think our success would be in establishing some level of control with Pakistan in the tribal areas and training an effective Afghan force for their own national security goals (second only to bringing bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to justice).

I don't want to be 'buddies' with Afghanistan. I don't want the US to be their national police force and provider of services. I want bin Laden and al-Zawahiri dead or in the Colorado SuperMax for life, and I want our guys home.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever

I don't know where you get your "intel" but that is incorrect...

yours points are good ones...

but the Iraq insurgency is not armed better than ever or even in better shape than ever.

Its almost collapsed except for a few remaining cells and strong groups that hold on. The mass insurgency of a few years ago...is...over.

I have a copy of a letter, a last will, written by an Iraqi Insurgent (Al Qedea) in late 2007, discussing how many of those he was recruited have turned against him, he is low on arms and munitions... etc etc.. We captured it during a raid. He also had a list of cell phone numbers of those who were still "with him"...hehehe yeah it was real good intel.... we tracked everyone of those numbers...

This was just the beginning of their decline...

While you do make some valid points of what the situation in the Stan as well as into how success in Iraq came to be .... Iraq.... is not in bad shape like you make it out to be.... I find it funny that the media has strayed away from Iraq over the past 8 months.... Success is not such good news as failure I guess.

I am not talking out of my ass either.... I was there...and I saw it with my own eyes... Not LEFT....OR RIGHT...News SPEWEAGE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can agree with what Deptacon said about Al-Quida, which was never more than 15% of the Iraqi insurgencies, and wore out their welcome with their Sunni hosts.
And hence Deptacon is correct in stating Al-Quida in Iraq is out of money, out of arms, and out of business in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

I was referring to the other 85% of the Iraqi insurgencies, not really terrorists but homegrown groups that took advantage of the anarchy in Iraq, they formed their own well armed militias, those arms and personnel are still there, resting and resupplying in plain sight, and now more profitably employed as they non-violently loot the Iraqi central government and the US occupation. The natural enemy of those home grown insurgents is a strong Iraqi central government who will put them out of business, until then, why fight conditions of no political progress? When the Iraqi insurgencies find conditions not to their liking, changes that will threaten their power, they still retain that real threat option to express their displeasure with violence. And very likely will plunge Iraq back into near civil war
rather than voluntarily give up power.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
We need 95% of troops out of Iraq, with some going home, and the rest going to Afghanistan for a while.

barry's whitepaper from last year left about 50% of the troops (as "advisors") in iraq even after the pull out. you're going to be sorely disappointed if you think 95% are leaving any time soon.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
We need 95% of troops out of Iraq, with some going home, and the rest going to Afghanistan for a while.

barry's whitepaper from last year left about 50% of the troops (as "advisors") in iraq even after the pull out. you're going to be sorely disappointed if you think 95% are leaving any time soon.

Well I was hoping that would be one thing myself and Obama can agree on. We shall see.

 

[Dulanic]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I thought Obama was the anti-war president?

Glad you listened and researched before the whole presidental vote. Obama said multiple times we need to be in Afganistan and we need to push strong there.

 

[StageLeft]

The place seems kind of a lost cause in many ways.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
Petraeus , who now is in command of CENTCOM (Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of the middle east theater) has talked repeatedly about surging Afghanistan in the spring... with Brigades the were scheduled to go to Iraq....

This does two things... Reduces troops in Iraq...and puts forward a plan that worked in Iraq (more troops plus the Petraeus approach to counter insurgency)

What do you all think? Especially since it will be Obama's call.... not Bush's call...

While some call Petraeus Bush's boy... I don't believe this...he just happened to be the smartest man in the room at the time... and now proving to be on of the most brilliant Generals since Eisenhower....

I think it is a good idea... and I think it will work. He has proven himself before. I served under him when he was in Iraq...and he ran tight ship and things went smooth and we saw progress when I was there...

I wonder how are enemy feels about having more targets in Afghanistan? What strategy drives them, that they actually believe that they can defeat the powerful united states? How can you actually root out an enemy that looks just like a civilian, kill them, and make it palatable to your constituency? What would be the incentive to put more troops in harms way? It's not like there is any resource there that we need to control, to benefit US. Land? Water? Oil? What is the point? Maybe, logistically, Afghanistan is the key to something we need to do in the future???????? then I can understand.

 

[sandorski]

The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly the last year or so. Kabul was secure, but even there the situation has turned for the worst.