Afghan Fight Needs COIN Plus: Cordesman

Afghan Fight Needs COIN Plus: Cordesman

CSIS’s Anthony Cordesman recently returned from Afghanistan where he was part of a team of experts brought in by new Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal to help craft a new strategy to arrest the downward slide in the war there. McChrystal will lay out his new strategy, expected to include a request for more troops, some time next month.

It’s refreshing to see the Obama administration encourage the participants in this strategy review to speak publicly, as opposed to the shroud of secrecy that accompanied any internal reviews conducted during the Iraq war. Andrew Exum, from CNAS, spoke to Charlie Rose the other day, Stephen Biddle, from the Council on Foreign Relations, speaks to reporters today, both were also on the strategy review team. Cordesman provided his take on what needs to be done to a group of Washington reporters yesterday (transcript and video here).

Cordesman’s overall take is that U.S. and NATO strategy in Afghanistan must go far beyond what the U.S. public and policymakers, their views colored by the Iraq war, consider counterinsurgency. Afghanistan is an exercise in armed nation building, rather than just a “counter-“ insurgency that seeks to beat back the Taliban. Iraq, a functioning modern state, had the framework, socially and institutionally, upon which to rebuild. In Afghanistan, that framework simply does not exist, not at the national and certainly not at the local level. The basic task there is to build some semblance of a state from the bottom up.


Counterinsurgency proponents talk a lot about the softer development and political aspects of counterinsurgency. But U.S. government counterinsurgency is almost wholly a military effort. As Cordesman said, so far — although this should change when McChrystal and his team lay out their strategy — there is no “meaningful campaign plan,” and little unity of effort between the military-security side and the civilian-economic development side. Instead, it is a “dysfunctional, wasteful mess focused on Kabul and crippled by bureaucratic divisions.” Creating a coordinated civil-military effort that includes the U.S., NATO as well as the UN and the development community, is job one.

Reversing the downward slide in Afghanistan will require lots more U.S. troops and a “very substantial” increase in spending. The Afghan security forces must be doubled in size, corruption at all levels of the Afghan government must be addressed, somehow a way must be found to increase NATO participation and then there is the problem of Pakistan, for which nobody really seems to have any answers.

What Cordesman had to say about our intelligence on the Taliban I though particularly important. He said the U.S. should refocus intelligence away from “simply finding threat forces in the field and defeating them” to understanding the “nature” of the insurgency. He called a recent Pentagon report on the insurgency “rubbish,” overly focused on the “kinetic” aspects of the war and not enough on answering the question of why Taliban influence is spreading throughout the country.

The reason, Cordesman said, is the almost complete lack of government structure at the local level, the only level that matters to most Afghans. Local government is seen as corrupt, abusive and as not serving the interests of the Afghan people. The Taliban at least provide some form of authority and, importantly, legal accountability, even if it’s their own harsh system.

As Cordesman said, the U.S. military can clear the Taliban from most any area, but at some point the Marines will leave Helmand; something must be left in their place. This is the biggest challenge we face in Afghanistan, I believe, and it’s a point Jeffrey Race made in his outstanding book on the counterinsurgency effort in Vietnam, War Comes to Long An. In Afghanistan, the problem is there must be something to “fill the hole” once the insurgents are defeated and the “shadow government” cleared from a village. We never came up with that “something” in Vietnam, Race contends, and so the effort there ultimately failed.

The U.S. faces the very same problem in Afghanistan. Any time U.S. forces clear and then leave an area, they create a vacuum that is promptly filled by the Taliban. Cordesman said the short term answer is to beef up the Afghan security forces. Longer term is hope the Afghans eventually develop governance capacity at the village, district and provincial level.

Join the Conversation

I wonder if anyone in this advisory team bothered to ask the Afghans themselves if they wanted a “modern state.” Many other nations before us have tried and failed. Many of the people out there simply want to be left alone, and they’ll be damned if a bunch of americans are going to tell them what kind of civilization to have. The Taliban might be telling them how to live, but the fact that they’re neighbors gives them legitimacy we may not be able to cope with. Cordesman “hopes the Afghans…governance at the village, district, and provincial level.” Good luck with that. They’ve been fighting for generations to prevent just that.

TB: Just let the woggies kill each other, huh? After all, it’s not like they’re _white_.

*****

The big problem with the American efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think, is that we assumed that the general social structure there was just like America only with bad people in charge. In fact–and as Cordesman points out–it was nothing of the sort. Most of the people living in these countries barely even knew the capital existed, much less felt that it had major impacts on their lives.

It sounds like we are being told that we need to spend billions to convince the Afghans that they need a modern society. And we have to spend additional billions building it for them. And then hoping that they can maintain it.

How about this option — let them work it out for themselves but let them know that if they come outside their own borders and hit us — we will come back and kick their ass.

It is not our job to make sure that they have functioning water plants, or radio stations, or even schools. It is our job to keep them from coming over here and bugging us. That is the extent of our ability as well.

We can’t drag them from the 12th century into the 21st by force.

I’m starting to think the whole idea of a united Afghan nation and national army is a mistake. They live local and they think local, so maybe we should focus on the village/province level, and how to make them self sufficient, and able to protect themselves from Taliban infiltration.

I mean they are already self sufficient, but give them some extra amenities they don’t already have: running water and improved methods of farming that allow them to live on something above subsistence, and have something left over to export to make a profit.

Forget Western style ethics and civil rights, and just focus on simple ways to improve the village infrastructure, like creating roads and trade ties that allow these people to make money– thus keeping them on our side
In terms of security, I wonder if McChrystal is going to advise arming locals for security, since Special Forces are already doing this in certain provinces.

“DensityDuck July 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

TB: Just let the woggies kill each other, huh? After all, it’s not like they’re _white_.”

OK, that’s bullsh**. Why would you even start that?

Afghanistan? We’ve made such a cocked-up mess of that, that it’s unwinnable. Sorry to say it. The Afghanis, more specifically the Taliban, were NOT the people who attacked us, they were sheltering some of the people who planned it. That didn’t grow out of a vacuum, it grew out of the same kind of nonsense we are perpetrating there right now. There is no guarantee a pacified Afghanistan will end future threats to us, and really our attempts to do so have INCREASED the threat regionally and internationally.

I suggest a better objective: Lighten the footprint, maintain a little presence, try to help Kabul develop something like legitimacy if at all possible… but basically, get the hell out. We have nothing to gain there. The regional presence will serve if Al Qaeda ever is dumb enough to stick its head up again.

Col. Phillips,

Ditto that. That’s why the call it the “Graveyard of Empires.” They didn’t ask for democracy, and they will expel all invaders as they always have. Frankly, I really don’t care half as much about the Afghanis as I do about Americans.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

DensityDuck,

The many tribes of Afghanistan have made it clear over countless generations of war that they don’t want outsiders trying to tell them how to live their lives. If they want to be left alone, leave them alone. Generally, the only thing that has ever come close to uniting the various groups over there is an outside invader.

A look at U.S. strategy in Afghanistan with Andrew Exum, former U.S. Army Ranger and Fellow at the Center for a New American Security

http://​www​.charlierose​.com/​v​i​e​w​/​i​n​t​e​r​v​i​e​w​/​1​0​507

“Longer term is hope the Afghans eventually develop governance capacity at the village, district and provincial level.”

I’ll echo Charles, and add that “hope” ought not to be confused with a solid plan. This is a no-win situation, time to get out.

Funny, all those saying Afghanistan is a no-win sounds exactly the same as those who said Iraq was a no-win. I think people just want to lose.

Now that we are ending our commitment to Iraq after stopping the civil war and making Iraq a Democratic state (which was a bonus). We can now leave in Victory with our heads up and focus entirely on Afghanistan. Give it a year maybe year 1/2 and see how it looks and make a decision then.

yeah Zach,

We’re some real nice guys, huh?

What else did we win? What are we going to win in Astan?

Zach,

Hate to say it but Iraq is not exactly a Democratic state. It is a corrupt, clannish mess that has already begun to return to its true nature– a decidely undemocratic oligarchy of Imams and bribes and palm greasing that has has not changed for 2000 years.

This is not to diminish what we have done there. It is to put it into perspective. We did our best to overthrow a dictator and establish peace– but we also caused a lot of death and destruction in Iraq and perhaps at least as many people died in the civil violence after the invasion as were killed by Saddam’s own hand. Was that a victory? I think it depends on who you ask. In twenty years, you might not see a thriving democracy in Iraq. You may well see what we have seen for a thousand years: tribal blood rule.

That said, I might be wrong and in 20 years Iraq is a rockin’s place. I’ll be open to that. But right now, Iraqis are dancing in the streets that we are leaving.

Afghanistan has been called the Graveyard of Empires. They are even more resistant to change and utterly xenophobic now while the war is heating up. I wish we had a clear mission there. I can’t figure out exactly what we are trying to do. Overthrow the Taliban? Didn’t we already do that once? I just see a mess there and no really exit strategy. Anyway, it’s a good discussion.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

U.S. interest and policy concerning Afghanistan as stated by the President is twofold:

1.) That Afghanistan is not used as a safe haven for transnational terrorist groups to plot terror attacks against the United States.

2.) That Afghanistan not is used as safe haven for destabilization of Pakistan.

This was stated by Andrew Exum who worked very closely with Gen. Stanley McChrystal on his ongoing strategy review.

This is his blog:

http://​www​.cnas​.org/​b​l​o​g​s​/​a​b​u​m​u​q​a​w​ama

Drake1–

Yes… and with the way we’ve conducted the war over there to date, with the forces we have there, and with whatever forces are *conceivably* available in the future (absent a great deal of allied support), that twofold policy is no better than a wish.

I’m not saying we won’t have success, and I’ll be pleased if we can make something good happen. However, the history of that part of the world, and the history of warfare, say COIN doesn’t work this way.

mike j wrote:
Drake1–

Yes… and with the way we’ve conducted the war over there to date, with the forces we have there, and with whatever forces are *conceivably* available in the future (absent a great deal of allied support), that twofold policy is no better than a wish.

I’m not saying we won’t have success, and I’ll be pleased if we can make something good happen. However, the history of that part of the world, and the history of warfare, say COIN doesn’t work this way.
=================================================================================
Until the current Administration Afghanistan was an economy of force operation, and only recently has we changed generals, and injected new troops. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is still currently conducting an ongoing strategy review, and has not yet proposed what he wants to do. What do people expect? No one should expect any noticeable change for at least a year or two. I’m not familiar with what exactly the British did in the area long ago, but I do know the Soviets did many things that we would now consider counterproductive.

I wonder if the Afghanis are going to hit the reset button, too. Kinda doubt it.

Daniel,
While I hope this doesn’t turn into a discussion about Iraq (We can agree to disagree), you said..

“Iraq is not exactly a Democratic state. It is a corrupt, clannish mess”

If I had to say, that’s how Washington has been like for along time. :)

“we also caused a lot of death and destruction in Iraq and perhaps at least as many people died in the civil violence after the invasion as were killed by Saddam’s own hand. Was that a victory?”

While civilian casualties is a sad part of war, I agree it could of been greatly reduced if we planned Iraq better. After we captured Baghdad we were like “Ok… what do we do now?” If it was planned better and we had more troops at the beginning we could of prevented alot of the mess that ensured after, and we perhaps would of been long gone from Iraq by now, as originally planned.

Now with Afghanistan it may be called the “Graveyard of Empires” but those Empires were trying to conquer Afghanistan, not sit down and talk with the tribes and try to help them against the Taliban’s strict and unfair laws. We aren’t trying to setup a Democratic state anymore, that’ll take WAY to long, and too much resources we just don’t have. Current goals are like Drake said,

1.) That Afghanistan is not used as a safe haven for terrorist.

2.) That Afghanistan is not used to destabilize Pakistan.

In order to do this we obviously need to greatly increase the size of the Afghan army and police, and get rid of the corruption. Let them take charge of their country.

We also need to get Pakistan to continue its offensive in their Tribal regions. They said they wont stop this time until they capture or kill the Taliban leader (Which I forget his name). But we all know how Pakistan loves to make these bad peace deals that fall apart..

Well… These wars have been the dumbest thing we´ve done in my lifetime (I´m 36) — but I don´t think they make it into the top 10 of worldwide dumb things to do.

Iraq has been turned around from utter defeat to simply ugly mess we can try to forget about… Afghanistan is going to give us a real hiding as it is the very definition of “Unwinable”

Just like Pearl Harbour spelled the end of the Western Empires in asia… 9/11 is the end of US superpower status… we just will not notice it for another 10–20 years…

(For the record I served in both holes — with an “allied nation” — no pun intended!)

“Now with Afghanistan it may be called the “Graveyard of Empires” but those Empires were trying to conquer Afghanistan, not sit down and talk with the tribes and try to help them against the Taliban’s strict and unfair laws.”

We charged into Afghanistan uninvited with guns blazing. We’re telling the Afghanis we have a better idea for how they should live their lives. If a foreign power came to the US the way we did there, what would you call it?

Zach,

You’re also making the assumption that everyone in Afghanistan hated the Taliban’s way of running things. One of the many reasons why doing things in Afghanistan is so difficult is there are portions of the population that miss the Taliban.

We should get out of these draining conflicts and return to a Pre-strike/ civil defense posture. We will never win in Iraq or Afhgansitan, the best we can hope for is what we have now. With all the third world having nukes ICBM’S what is the use staying in these conflicts. Let us start massive civil defense, oh hell its too late.

TB,

I don’t think we charged into Afghanistan telling them how to live, we went after the terrorist, if you remember they attacked us first.

As for some of the population wanting the Taliban, that’s mostly because we destroyed their only ways of cash… Opium… without subsidizing it for something else, putting the farmers in debt, which puts them into the hands of the Taliban.

Zach,

“They” were routed and sent running for the hills in the first 4 months of the war. As soon as the Taliban and AQ were pushed out, we started saying “democracy” when we spoke publicly about Afghanistan.

As for our destroying the opium crop, we haven’t even made a dent in production. The Taliban during the late 1990s destroyed 90% of the poppy crop during their rule. Farmers held onto enough seeds to replant when we swept in. The Taliban’s methods were harsh by most standards, but many many Afghanis have said they were safe while under Taliban rule.

KB,

I’m not sure where you been lately but we have won in Iraq already. The Iraqi’s have control of their country and we have been slowly leaving the country for over a year. All that’s left is for the Iraqi’s to continue reconciliation (which are slow for the time being due to elections coming up). I’m not sure how that is losing.

TB, Just last night there was a story on CNN and again today on Fox about us pushing the Afghan government to ban Opium and took a look at the farmers being affected by it.

Here’s the story on Fox, I wasn’t able to find it again on CNN :(

http://​www​.foxnews​.com/​s​t​o​r​y​/​0​,​2​9​3​3​,​5​3​6​2​0​0​,​0​0​.​h​tml

Zach, your article (which I had read earlier in the day)both reinforces and damages your point. From your linked AP article:
=========================================
“Two years ago, opium, the raw ingredient used to make heroin, grew on nearly half a million acres in Afghanistan. The harvest was worth about $4 billion, or equal to nearly half the country’s GDP in 2007. As much as a tenth — almost half a billion dollars — went to local strongmen, including the Taliban, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.”

“Under intense international pressure, the government redoubled its effort to crack down on opium farmers. By last year, the number of acres planted with poppy had dropped by a fifth, yet the Taliban’s finances remained largely untouched. Ninety-eight percent of Afghanistan’s opium is now grown in just seven of the country’s 34 provinces — all areas under partial or total Taliban control.“
========================================
So essentially, the Taliban is still profiting from opium, while other farmers in goverment-controlled areas are suffering and may turn against us and the government. We need to get money and/or food to those folks in the short term.

On a positive note, I read that National Guard troops from U.S. farm states are teaching Afghanis how to grow other crops. We are also improving 3 key dams and irrigation channels and will increase electricity production at Kajaki dam…if we can get the power to cities without perpetually having power lines downed.

But note elsewhere in your AP article that farmers make half to 1/10th as much if they grow other crops. How will they afford electricity or electric items. And the other crops are not as hardy and need more water and fertilizer…and what can you make with fertilizer??

Another article I read today cited that when we rebuild the roads, it makes it easier to transport the opium. And when you read Michael Yon and other embedded reports, you also know about all the bombs planted in the plowed soil and hiding Taliban even in tall corn crops.

So nearly half the country’s economy is based on illicit drugs going to the wrong crowd, and even friendly crops can be dangerous. The Korengal valley residents like their timber and kill to secure it. Sounds like we need lots of overhead UAS, C-12s, and satellites following vehicles to drug labs during harvest season followed by raids/bombs.

Checkpoints closer to Herat and the southern Afghan border along the ring road could seize drugs for destruction with U.N. camera/spectral analysis monitoring to reduce corruption influences [well maybe some other international group other than the U.N. ;) ], and UAS flights covering off road routes near the chokepoint checkpoints. That way the farmers may still get the money for growing poppies but the drugrunners get less from converting it.

What if we build tall power/cell phone line poles with cameras mounted every few kilometers and guard towers on others with nearby Afghan Army combat outposts along the ring road watching the camera footage. That way the Afghan Army protects both powerlines, roads, and nearby towns…and can continue to after we leave.

I read that Richard Holbrooke is making overtures to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and that Karzai was seeking his backing in the upcoming election. If we could buy off the Haqqani network, too, much of the problem in the northeast would disappear leaving only the Korengal valley problem…and it sounds like we may write that one off as too hard and unnecessary. Then we could concentrate more on Helmand province and protecting the passes to Pakistan.

Pay-off who we can, and concentrate on higher population areas, Helmand, and the ring road. I see China is really interested in the northern route to Iranian ports so there is a potential military and monetary ally possibly.

Guess a lot will depend on what happens in the coming elections and who can/can’t be bought (and actually lives up to the agreement)…and a lot more depends on Afghani desire to continue living in the past or try to advance into at least the early 20th century for the good of their children.

BTW, Duncan Cradden, that is a heck of a cool project you have going on in Nepal. You must not be a complete pessimist.

Cole–

Just curious, how do you imagine we will be winning hearts and minds, and still have the forces available to run down drug labs or whatever? Any rough guess as to how many troops all that infrastructure guarding will require? Aren’t we going to need whatever Afghan forces are available to communicate and deal with the population? How does that square with Cordesman saying we’ll need to bypass the Afghan govt, and presumably the military and police it controls, due to its dishonesty and corruption?

If you read that press briefing Cordesman gave, if you just overlook the parts where he says “we can win”, you’d swear he thinks we already lost.

Good points Cole, hopefully the new General will be able to turn things around and not be blocked by politics from doing what is needed.

Heh Mike J, good thing I couldn’t sleep.

Watched much of the Cordesman brief the other day. Man that guy can talk. Not sure talk is the answer. Talk is cheap. Show them the money. Shuras have us talking to guys who may or may not even be in charge nodding their heads to us, and then doing the same to the Taliban (or they are Taliban) out of either fear or complicity.

Did we win hearts and minds in Iraq or did we pay unemployed guys to be on our side?

Do the Israelis try to go into Gaza and talk it out? No they build a fence and put automated .50 cal around the perimeter with sensors to watch and shoot if trouble arises. Since they built their fences the threat of suicide bombings has gone way down. When we fenced in Sadr City, we got similar results. There are areas of Afghanistan where a virtual fence would help.

I’m thinking we start with 600+ miles of ring road virtual fence from Kabul to near Herat. A company of one hundred men every 10–15 miles is 60 companies to cover 600+ miles, with fewer men in less hospitable areas, more in complex terrain with more residents.

Most of the population lives within 50 kms of the ring road anyway. Creation of a protected zone would create the inkblot effect spreading to other adjacent areas. Aerial augmentation using the same ring road company combat outposts (COP) would occur as incidents increased, but there would always be a presence and a constant surveillance of adjacent areas.

That sounds like about 20 battalions or 7 brigades…not of Americans but a combination of coalition and Afghan Army forces…eventually maybe one U.S./British/French/Dutch/German/Polish/Lithuanian etc. platoon per 2 platoons of Afghan Army. They mentioned only 650 Afghan Army troops are in Helmand. That is only 2+ battalions. We need a few years to train and help pay more Afghan Army for Helmand and areas northwest of Helmand.

With extra coalition troops, we might select other areas off the ring road for additional protection…but don’t we have to choose our battles? Since we can only field so many troops, we must choose those areas where we can make a difference. Contain the rest using airpower or try to pay warlords to secure their own backyard.

Not sure you can even make Afghan police non-corrupt and they are inadequately armed/armored if they aren’t corrupt. Add more Afghan Soldiers or paramilitary instead. Let them run essential community services out of their COP or have civilians there under military supervision to hinder corruption.

Create smaller Afghan Army platoon COPs and build two-man armored guard towers into electric/cell poles every few miles with ceiling fans, sniper rifles, and landlines to the platoon COP. Put automated low light or IR cameras on some poles in the gaps between manned towers. Have an armored vehicle QRF at company HQ. The Brits know how to do surveillance cameras and Helmand is historically their province. Put the cameras in bulletproof cases and conduct centralized surveillance from the company and platoon COPs.

Now you can move your “show me the money” commerce/resupply/building/medical coalition forces over the ring roads with impunity. You are protecting primary electrical/communication/transportation infrastructure and perhaps eventually, you can run pipelines along the same protected ring road for natural gas, oil, and or water.

Cordesman was right. You aren’t going to get NGOs and U.S. experts to go to Afghanistan if they don’t feel safe. Don’t buy the “can’t use a M-ATV because it isn’t touch-feely with the public” line of thinking. Get out of the truck when you get there but at least feel safe en route and drive the M-ATV in front of dismounts (or use FCS unmanned ground vehicles in more complex terrain) to blow up any mines.

Afghans respect force…just not ground or air attacks against civilians. Let the Afghan Army be the majority of that force as a representative of the federal government, while we/they also provide the civilian handouts and services/infrastructure…and teach them to “fish.”

I’ve been of the opinion from day one in Iraq and afganistan that we should have spent the billions (that has already been wasted by our government) on boarder security, airport security, and emergency response here in the US. We would be so much better off than the wasteful situation we are in right now, the money would have been spent here in the US to make us safer. We need to get out of Iraq and Afganistan while we still have an economy left

Zach, if you call Iraq a victory, I am sorry but I disagree, if our goal was to make things a little more quiet then I guess your right. But Iraq sucks right now,the goverment is corrupt cooperates with Iran, The Iraqi Army is a joke! still hates the Kurds and the Sunni and vice versa, and the US. Oh yeah the euipment in the ARMY is a wreck, we lost over 4000 KIA, OVER 38,000 WOUNDED THATS TWO DIVISIONS, Billions lost!! And our dumbass Generals learned nothing from Chechnya. Yeah ha a major victory​.MY IDEA OF A VICTORY IS THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF OUR ENEMY, have we done that?

don´t be silly as u´re destroying nations yu´ll be destroyed no matter what power u have,it is nothing compare to history.…read the history if u can read und understand it if u can understand.
viva la revolucion

Cole–

Thanks very much for the reply. That sort of estimation isn’t my bailiwick, so I appreciate it. And I’ll say this: It’s a plan, which is better than what we’ve had.

Given what forces are available, and what we’re going to get over time, it’s going to be a while before we could roll on that project. We of course need to expect the enemy is going to try to take their pound of flesh, they’ll certainly be choosing *their* battles. We’d need lots of force multipliers (manned COIN CAS, etc etc etc).

Here’s the trouble: I’m just not sure fixing Afghanistan makes strategic sense. This is going to tie down significant forces and money for many years. Afghanistan has fundamental internal problems (read: civil war), and it’s also traditionally the dog that gets kicked when the neighbors get upset. Pacifying Afghanistan may help Pakistan, but it is a rough neighborhood, and God knows how long it would stay pacified.

I believe there is a way forward, long term, but it’s much less kinetic, and a lot fuzzier than what you provided above. It also would require patience and consistency that I’m not sure our republic with its 4–8 year election cycle can maintain. Suffice to say, the best option we have now (IMO), after botching the last 8 years there, is to get mostly out and keep ourselves ready. We should not back off on al Qaeda, but there’s something more entrenched about “Talibanism” that I’m just not hopeful we can simply deprogram with COIN.

I got quite a bit out of these articles by Chuck Spinney, have a look: http://​www​.counterpunch​.org/​s​p​i​n​n​e​y​0​7​1​4​2​0​0​9​.​h​tml

http://​www​.counterpunch​.org/​s​p​i​n​n​e​y​0​7​2​9​2​0​0​9​.​h​tml

Thanks again.

Ribby, that’s isolationist talk, its NEVER worked at anytime in history. Besides border security wont stop a biological, chemical, or even a nuclear attack on the homeland. Look at Israel, their surrounded by a wall and yet still get rockets firing into their territory all the time.

KB, its war, people die, its sad but true. We lost alot in WWII but yet we still won a bitter victory. But you say the Iraqi government is corrupt, I ask you what government isn’t corrupt? The US Government is probably the most corrupt in the history of the world. (And I’m not just talking about Obama, mostly congress, its been this way for a LONG LONG time and only gets worst.)

And complete destruction of our enemy? Saddam is dead, AQI is almost non existent, the civil war is dead, and the insurgency is badly damaged. The Iraqi military has made ALOT of gains and is able to stand on its own now, and they are continuing to reduce corruption, things don’t go from horrible to perfect overnight. Even the US military isn’t perfect. (Even tho the best in the world)

As for Iran, I haven’t seen Iraq cooperate with Iran yet, they might be somewhat friendlier then under Saddam, but they are definitely not cooperating with each other. Unless Iran funding the insurgency in Iraq is cooperating.

btw Cole–

Times and this administration being what they are, your plan has a much better chance of being implemented than mine.

mikej, sorry for late response. I could sleep last night and can’t post at work. ;)

My “plan” is a gross oversimplification. But guess the point is that whatever works now has got to work for the Afghans after we leave.

If we are all over the map with our/their troops, I don’t think the Afghan Army has the armored trucks or helicopters to resupply/stay after we leave. If they are primarily on the ring road and other paved roads, the IED threat is greatly reduced. They aren’t going to have our million dollar M-ATVs most likely and donated up-armored HMMWVs only carry so many supplies and still get blown sky high.

BTW, there is hardly any nationwide electricity right now outside big cities and I doubt there are even powerlines along most of the ring road. Just suggesting that as we fix Kajaki 1 and 2 and add Kajaki 3 hydro-electric generators, you may be able to send more power to Helmand and areas north with Kabul sending some of their exported power from Uzbekistan toward the south.

If you gotta build electric towers anyway, build a FOB nearby at the same time and a small guard tower and cameras into some of the same power/cell poles.

Cole–

No worries, plenty of opportunities in the future to hash this over, unfortunately.

Two images came to mind thinking about your scenario: The Great Wall, or a huge concentration camp if we do it wrong. Sincerely hope it’s more like the former. It makes sense to try giving them something worth defending. Plugging Afghanistan into the modern world might have the right effect, but in the end we may have to make do with only part of Afghanistan pacified.

Interesting analogy: The Great Wall. Was afraid someone might compare it to the Maginot Line, but a better description may be a screen line characterized by Security Operations.

The reason much of the Afghan area on the interior of the ring road is not as troublesome (except Helmand) is because it is habitated by the Hazaras, Tajiks, and Uzbeks who are less receptive to the Pashtun Taliban message.

While researching some information about Task Force ODIN for the HUMINT vs TECHINT debate (which really isn’t one because you CAN/DO have both) I discovered this little gem:

http://​www​.armytimes​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​8​/​1​2​/​w​e​b​_​d​e​f​e​n​s​e​_​1​2​1​5​0​8​_​a​r​m​y​_​O​D​IN/

Also read the Feb 2009 C4ISR article that can be found by googling “Task Force ODIN in Afghanistan.” Unbeknownst to me, security of the ring road is one of the proposed ODIN missions there. Be afraid Taliban…be very afraid. 3000 Iraqi IED-layers are no longer with us thanks to TF ODIN and manned-unmanned teaming with Apaches/OH-58D that expedited the sensor-to-shooter link.

But guess the point remains that Afghanistan is unlikely to have a similar TF ODIN capability after we leave. Agree with you that even if a formal Pashtunistan is never created, a defacto one may exist after we leave because the Afghan Army and government will have to decide what to “hold-build” and what to let go. As for the Pakistanis, they may well go on fighting terrorists on their own.

I don’t know how to win. Some of you have good ideas and some of the folks running the war have good ideas. What will work? I don’t know. But what do we mean by ‘winning’?

None of you mentioned Islam (if u did I missed it). No longer winded lecture, basically it is ‘in their book’ that the infidel must
a. Convert to Islam
b. Submit and pay the tax (live as Dhimmi and pay the jizya)
c. Lacking the first two – an eternal state of war exist.

They win when they have world domination and reestablish the caliphate – and they have literally forever to accomplish this. Forever.

My fiancée is a Christian Arab, lived in Muslim nations her entire life, of course speaks Arabic, currently living in Damascus, and she told me, “They want your land”. One reason they want it – it’s green.

I confess — this is an over simplification – my gosh — BOOKS are written about this. But if you think I fabricated this do your own research. (Might start by looking at the term dar al-Harb) But in addition to all the posts above and below I would like you to consider what they are trying to achieve and why. To me winning could be defined as merely preventing their objectives. The Economist magazine recently said one of the worse things to come from our ‘failure’ would be the emboldening of our enemies.

Could be a forever war for us too.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement