This will determine the fate of the mission in Afghanistan

[Lemon law]

If nothing else, cwjerome, we can trust JOS on the military aspects of the Afghan war, and if JOS states Afghanistan is a total loss from the military point of view, I don't think there is any cause to doubt him.

Of course I have always argued that Afghanistan was being lost politically and on the very corruption and anarchy Nato brought along with their occupation on the cheap, you can argue "we" are taking cheap shots at GWB, but its still can't put any band aids on the failure.

The question is and remains, how can Nato win in Afghanistan? And it should be clear to the dimmest of dimwits, that very different new tactics are called for in Afghanistan. And at least from my viewpoint, if Obama cannot be a part in evolving that new strategy, I will be as harsh on him as I was on GWB.

I also have some respect for Generals Petraeus and McCrystal, they at least seem to start to get it in MHO.

Can't we put partisan politics aside for one mad moment and concentrate on how to win in Afghanistan?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think something to consider is that the increased Taliban operations in Afghanistan is ongoing maybe not because they are getting stronger in Afghanistan... it may be more likely because they are anticipating being forced out of Pakistan- as they have been largely chased out of Swat and now maybe from Waziristan. They have to relocate somewhere and create operational space for themselves. I am not sure it is a sign of strength or part of a bluff that they appear stronger than they really are.

Does it matter? The military tries nation building because we think it's necessary, and essentially, DoS doesn't mobilize to do it in war zones. The American way of war is to hand off the the job to the generals while the rest of the government engages in business as usual. The military pretty much likes it that way, as there is less 'interference' down range. But it also means that our activities are truncated, as there is no "full spectrum" effort which applies all of the resources, skills and agencies of the Federal Government to solve the myriad of problems in the conflict zone. Just another hole in the failboat.

My growing suspicion is that Mr. Obama was hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan during his presidential campaign solely because he needed to balance his position to withdraw from Iraq ASAP. He doesn't want to prosecute either war.

If that's true, next after about six to ten months more of Karzai refusing to budge from his position, the U.S. will declare the political situation to be incompatible with their goals and will withdraw to bases on the fringes, if they don't leave altogether.

 

[Lemon law]

If nothing else, the Karzai government just suffered a serious setback. The UN commission in charge of the August Afghan election has declared 1/3 of the votes tainted by Fraud. Meaning Karzai is now below 50%, and he now faces a future run off election or a power sharing agreement. The current election will not stand.

IMHO, Karzai is not all personally that corrupt, but the rest of his government is totally corrupt. And maybe the first step in a nato winning strategy may be to toss the whole set of Karazai government rascals out as step one. And replace it with a UN sponsored government that will act in the interests of the Afghan people. Until then, The Taliban will continue to win.

If Karzai himself will not demand good governance, he is worthless and part of the problem.

 

[Lemon law]

accidental double post

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think something to consider is that the increased Taliban operations in Afghanistan is ongoing maybe not because they are getting stronger in Afghanistan... it may be more likely because they are anticipating being forced out of Pakistan- as they have been largely chased out of Swat and now maybe from Waziristan. They have to relocate somewhere and create operational space for themselves. I am not sure it is a sign of strength or part of a bluff that they appear stronger than they really are.

Does it matter? The military tries nation building because we think it's necessary, and essentially, DoS doesn't mobilize to do it in war zones. The American way of war is to hand off the the job to the generals while the rest of the government engages in business as usual. The military pretty much likes it that way, as there is less 'interference' down range. But it also means that our activities are truncated, as there is no "full spectrum" effort which applies all of the resources, skills and agencies of the Federal Government to solve the myriad of problems in the conflict zone. Just another hole in the failboat.

My growing suspicion is that Mr. Obama was hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan during his presidential campaign solely because he needed to balance his position to withdraw from Iraq ASAP. He doesn't want to prosecute either war.

If that's true, next after about six to ten months more of Karzai refusing to budge from his position, the U.S. will declare the political situation to be incompatible with their goals and will withdraw to bases on the fringes, if they don't leave altogether.

That may be... or, Obama is assessing the immediate situation. Rerunning debates reaching back to early 2009 (or for that matter of the 1980s) is irrelevant given the necessity of deciding and acting based on today's "ground truth" and our forecast of the future.

After entering on his command, McChrystal assessed "ground truth" regarding what he inherited, and inheritance which can be characterized as COIN "Lite+." What I term Lite+ is a straddle between "lite" (just hunt the bad guys) and full COIN. He concluded, with considerable evidence, that "Lite+" is on the road to failure. There is no sense in marching down the road to failure, so we need to make a turn.

Given this "ground truth," a decision will be made among three basic strategic courses of action: 1) "nation-building," which is shorthand for doing and succeeding at everything in FM 3-24, 2) going wholly "lite," which consists primarily of chasing and one can hope snatching or killing AQ bad guys across the AfPak landscape, without substantively improving the Afghan environment, or 3) withdrawing. Doing a straddle merely dissipates resources.

I've made it clear that I dislike the nation-building, as do many others... but at decision-making time you are forced to choose actions based on prospective outcomes and available resources, and "like" has little to do with it.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think something to consider is that the increased Taliban operations in Afghanistan is ongoing maybe not because they are getting stronger in Afghanistan... it may be more likely because they are anticipating being forced out of Pakistan- as they have been largely chased out of Swat and now maybe from Waziristan. They have to relocate somewhere and create operational space for themselves. I am not sure it is a sign of strength or part of a bluff that they appear stronger than they really are.

Does it matter? The military tries nation building because we think it's necessary, and essentially, DoS doesn't mobilize to do it in war zones. The American way of war is to hand off the the job to the generals while the rest of the government engages in business as usual. The military pretty much likes it that way, as there is less 'interference' down range. But it also means that our activities are truncated, as there is no "full spectrum" effort which applies all of the resources, skills and agencies of the Federal Government to solve the myriad of problems in the conflict zone. Just another hole in the failboat.

My growing suspicion is that Mr. Obama was hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan during his presidential campaign solely because he needed to balance his position to withdraw from Iraq ASAP. He doesn't want to prosecute either war.

If that's true, next after about six to ten months more of Karzai refusing to budge from his position, the U.S. will declare the political situation to be incompatible with their goals and will withdraw to bases on the fringes, if they don't leave altogether.

That may be... or, Obama is assessing the immediate situation. Rerunning debates reaching back to early 2009 (or for that matter of the 1980s) is irrelevant given the necessity of deciding and acting based on today's "ground truth" and our forecast of the future.

After entering on his command, McChrystal assessed "ground truth" regarding what he inherited, and inheritance which can be characterized as COIN "Lite+." What I term Lite+ is a straddle between "lite" (just hunt the bad guys) and full COIN. He concluded, with considerable evidence, that "Lite+" is on the road to failure. There is no sense in marching down the road to failure, so we need to make a turn.

Given this "ground truth," a decision will be made among three basic strategic courses of action: 1) "nation-building," which is shorthand for doing and succeeding at everything in FM 3-24, 2) going wholly "lite," which consists primarily of chasing and one can hope snatching or killing AQ bad guys across the AfPak landscape, without substantively improving the Afghan environment, or 3) withdrawing. Doing a straddle merely dissipates resources.

I've made it clear that I dislike the nation-building, as do many others... but at decision-making time you are forced to choose actions based on prospective outcomes and available resources, and "like" has little to do with it.

This is absolutely spot-on, and is why I expect the mission outlined in the OP news link to be a failure. I see a limited engagement area, limited troops (30k), and no plan in place to keep whatever ground is earned by the Pakistani military in blood and resources.

 

[Lemon law]

In other words, both Cwjerome and Arkaign are conceding that realism means we can't regard Afghanistan as a military problem.

And once we realize its a political problem, it opens up new vistas in terms of political strategies. Given that the Taliban are a bunch of reactionary idiots that have nothing to offer the Afghan people, Nato can finally start to address how to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people with the best currency available, good governance and the benefits of modernity.

What I have been saying for years, congratulations for finally coming on board.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In other words, both Cwjerome and Arkaign are conceding that realism means we can't regard Afghanistan as a military problem.

And once we realize its a political problem, it opens up new vistas in terms of political strategies. Given that the Taliban are a bunch of reactionary idiots that have nothing to offer the Afghan people, Nato can finally start to address how to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people with the best currency available, good governance and the benefits of modernity.

What I have been saying for years, congratulations for finally coming on board.

Snicker...not near the laugh of a Moonie post, but still good for a smile. Can you throw in Hague and 'stinking thinking' in there too, make it complete?

Question: How do you plan on that actually happening, "win the hearts and minds", as local Taliban are breaking hearts and warping/forcing minds as they're raping someone's daughter in front of them, and telling them they'll be back next week?

How are you going to provide a nice modern school when the Taliban come in and blow it up, and then beat the s1ht out of the local Leadership - while raping some more of their daughters - for whatever reason they want to make up?

Just curious on how plan to accomplish these things w/o security.......

Chuck

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In other words, both Cwjerome and Arkaign are conceding that realism means we can't regard Afghanistan as a military problem.

And once we realize its a political problem, it opens up new vistas in terms of political strategies. Given that the Taliban are a bunch of reactionary idiots that have nothing to offer the Afghan people, Nato can finally start to address how to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people with the best currency available, good governance and the benefits of modernity.

What I have been saying for years, congratulations for finally coming on board.

:roll:

First I'm not conceding anything because I did not forfeit anything I thought previously. Second, the Afghan conflict is not a political problem, it's a full spectrum problem that encompasses military, political, economic, and social aspects. Third, we don't need to win their hearts and minds... we don't need them to love us and we don't need them to think like us. What we do need to do is to earn their trust and with that comes respect.

 

[yllus]

It looks like we're going to see a Karzai-Abdullah power sharing agreement, which considerably narrows Mr. Obama's options. If that happens, I suppose the question is whether he'll see a decision to send anything lower than the 60,000 troops General McChrystal recommends to hold off the Taliban.

Reducing the fight in Afghanistan to a special forces / drone hunt is probably the way to go (for us, not the Afghanis) but I doubt that Mr. Obama is willing to appear that dovish in his first term.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: yllus
It looks like we're going to see a Karzai-Abdullah power sharing agreement, which considerably narrows Mr. Obama's options. If that happens, I suppose the question is whether he'll see a decision to send anything lower than the 60,000 troops General McChrystal recommends to hold off the Taliban.

Reducing the fight in Afghanistan to a special forces / drone hunt is probably the way to go (for us, not the Afghanis) but I doubt that Mr. Obama is willing to appear that dovish in his first term.

It's a matter of cutting our losses and saving good American lives, not about being a dove.