Are our troops fighting the Taliban to defend against threats to our security or to secure rights?

[bigtree]

IT'S an interesting turn to the debate over U.S. military involvement in NATO's occupation of Afghanistan to find so many folks expressing their opposition to 'peace talks' with the Taliban in terms of their opposition to the practices and tenets of fundamental Islam or Sharia Law rather than in a focus on the correctness of our presence there.

The dilemma I see developing is wide opposition in the U.S. to further military operations in Afghanistan, but a growing movement against any 'deals' with the Taliban which allow any practice of their fundamental Islam to remain, even in return for a cessation of resistant violence.

There aren't many options to resolving the conflict between NATO forces' nation-building, anti al-Qaeda efforts and the Taliban between the military operation and negotiations for peace. Many activists have complained about the prospect of any lessening of pressure on the Taliban, but that augers for continued military confrontations and skirmishes with the goal of preventing the Taliban from assuming any position of power or authority.

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan originated as a defense against the original 9-11 fugitive suspects and their accomplices. It's degenerated into a faltering, nebulous defense of the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan against what has become the face of resistance to our military presence and activity. It's a self-perpetuating battle against the effects and consequences of our own strident militarism across sovereign borders.

It isn't clear what the defenders of the rights and well-being of women in Afghanistan and elsewhere under Taliban rule want the U.S. military to do about their concerns, but it's becoming the rallying cry for rejecting the initiatives of negotiations with the Islamic organization. The alternative seems to be a continuation of the perpetual cycle of attacks and reprisals.

Are our troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to defend against 'threats' to our national security as the original authorization to use military force defined?

Are our troops fighting the Taliban because their ascent to power would threaten our national security, or, are they fighting back the Taliban in Afghanistan because of the prospect of the proliferation of the practice of Islamic law affecting the rights of women?

The former is a clear falsehood and the latter is just an imperialistic crusade.

[leftstreet]

1. The 'mission' in Pipelinestan has always been vague

Drugs. Oil. Terrorists. Pipelines.

Who knows.

[bigtree]

6. let's hope the president clarifies it

. . . and let's hope to make a clear judgment then.

[jody]

2. The answer will be what CINC Obama says are our goals & the strategy to achieve those goals.

[bigtree]

3. I'm speaking more to whatever support he may have for that mission

. . . and to support for continuing the fight against the Taliban as a defense against the establishment of fundamental Islam.

[jody]

5. Understand but I stand by my opinion, we must wait until CINC Obama presents his goals and strategy

for his inherited war in Afghanistan.

There are over 40 million Pashtun tribe members in the contiguous area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Essentially all the Taliban are Pashtun who as you pointed out want to establish a fundamental Islamic government.

They've been defeating invaders for over a thousand years.

[Igel]

8. There are two "they" there.

The first are the Pakhtun, who've had a fairly independent, often fractious but thoroughly tribal and honor-based system of government. They've been there a fairly long time but their language is, nonetheless, an import.

Then there are the Taliban, who are a fairly recent innovation. Note that the Taliban are ethnically insiders, but ideologically they're outsiders. It's an important point to make. Granted, they have their parallels in previous movements, most notably in the 1960s, but traditionally the jihad-like movements have had intertribal grievances or a visceral attempt just to fight the outsiders as their food and oxygen supply. You deal with either the jihad movement or the intertribal grievances and things settle down; in the latter case, by resolving the grievance and restoring balance and in the former by forcing a new balance to be accepted as the status quo.

The Taliban can be squished into this kind of description, but you have to make quite interesting assumptions, preferably explicit ones, to make the description fit. If nothing else, it's a good exercise in critical thinking. The first target of all our critical thinking must be, of course, our own.

I wonder how widely Maududi is read by the Taliban. Probably a fair amount.

[jody]

9. Agree, I'm not an area expert but IMO the problem in the Afghan-Pak area is not understood by our

politicians or military/state department experts and for all indications our military strategy and tactics are just lightly modernized versions of those used by previous would-be conquers, a brute-force approach.

We tout our training programs for Afghanistan troops as the answer but I don't understand how those troops can succeed with strategy/tactics that have never worked?

ON EDIT ADD:
Article below is just one of hundreds that discuss the problem.
The Pashtun time bomb

[Squatch]

11. Answer:

"We tout our training programs for Afghanistan troops as the answer but I don't understand how those troops can succeed with strategy/tactics that have never worked?"

One of the basic tenets of a counterinsurgency campaign is the establishment of visible and stable internal security forces. If the people see that their security needs are being met by such forces, they are less likely to support anti-governmental insurgencies such as the one being waged by the Taliban.

[jody]

14. Thanks but I don't see how that answers the question I posed, "We tout our training programs for

Afghanistan troops as the answer but I don't understand how those troops can succeed with strategy/tactics that have never worked?"

Albert Einstein supposedly said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It could be however that Einstein was wrong and a miracle will occur but you need to be more explicit.

[Squatch]

19. You said it yourself that you weren't an area expert.

Maybe you should become one before telling me that I "need" to be more explicit. Thx.

[jody]

22. If you are an area expert as you imply, please answer my question. n/t

[Squatch]

10. Not so much anymore.

The Taliban, in its current state, is composed of large numbers of foreigners, especially in the "militant wing". These include individuals from Chechnya, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, none of whom are Pashtuns.

But, what do I know...I just work here. :)

On edit, spelled Kyrgyzstan correctly.

[jody]

13. Thanks for your opinion. n/t

[Squatch]

18. That wasn't an opinion. n/t

[jody]

23. If that's not your opinion, please provide links to credible sources supporting your assertion. n/t

[Squatch]

28. It's at this time that I'm going to ask you to kindly get bent.

"links to credible sources"

(Squatch points finger to himself)

All my other sources usually have a big security disclaimer on the header, which as you should know, I cannot post. But, since I'm actually over here and fighting this war, maybe you should consider me a credible source as a lot of other DUers have...unless, of course, doing so would cause you to challenge your deeply-cherished misconceptions about this war.

Now, good day.

[jody]

34. Your post confirms my suspicions, all smoke and no fire. Heaven help the U.S. if we must rely upon

such wisdom to protect this great nation.

[bigtree]

37. you really had to go there?

no words.

[jody]

38. What's your problem? I don't object to exchanging opinions but if someone declares their assertions

are more than opinions, then they should not object to providing facts for support.

I know that troops at lower levels of any military organization are not privy to the rationale for military strategy and tactics.

Just reading a military manual or serving in a combat theater also does not qualify troops as experts in strategy and tactics.

Note your OP "Are our troops fighting the Taliban to defend against threats to our security or to secure rights?" asks a question about COIN strategy and tactics.

Why would you ask that question and then object to posts on that topic?

For a start, those interested in the topic should read "FM 3-24 New Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Manual" and the pro & con comments on its COIN strategy and tactics.

[bigtree]

40. active duty

I understood that he was limited in what he could say because of his active (and engaged) status. I think you're out of line in criticizing his service rather than sticking with your differences with the ideas he expressed.

[jody]

41. LOL, if an active duty troop by choice chooses to participate in an Internet forum she/he should not

be treated any differently than any other participant.

I hope you are not suggesting that the unsupported opinions of active duty troops are somehow superior to assertions supported with facts and credible sources.

[bigtree]

42. no

you're obviously free to be as rude here as you please.

I'm just saying that there was no need to insult his service. Of course, his opinion is fair game.

[jody]

43. So my comment was rude but the post to which I replied telling me to "get bent" is not? What a

pathetic double standard you have.

There is nothing about the COIN strategy and tactics being used in Afghanistan in particular the efforts to stop opium production that is classified such that the topic cannot be openly discussed on internet both pro and con.

I assume you are sufficiently well read on the topic to recognize that simple fact because you started this thread.

[bigtree]

44. I'm much more interested in debating ideas, rather than denigrating the service of our troops

I see no reason to question Squatch's opinion beyond what he was willing to offer. No need at all.

Of course, you make a good point about the wisdom of doubling down on a tried and failed strategy. Hopefully there are differences in strategy and tactics there which will lead to some success. I'm certain that we aren't privy to the full picture of that strategy. Hell, we haven't even seen Pres. Obama's official plan yet.

I think the service of our nation's defenders needs a strong advocate these days. Others are free to differ on that. I appreciate your input here as well.

[jody]

47. You don't know my career. ROFL and have a good day.

[bigtree]

49. You have have some association with or experience with military matters?

As I said, I appreciate your input as well.

[jody]

51. Whether one has association with or experience with military matters IMO is unimportant compared to

assertions made supported by facts and credible statements from experts and on Internet forums that means carefully chosen links.

In general I don't value very highly comments from talking heads, blathering politicians, and opinionated former members of any government organization UNLESS their opinions are rational and supported by facts.

I also know that just because a person is successful in one endeavor it does not qualify her/him as an expert in other areas.

For example, just because a person has made millions of dollars speculating in real estate, it does not mean that person is an expert on pollution and qualified to advise a governor on such problems.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Neither.

[soothsayer]

7. to keep the natural gas and opium flowing

the cia needs to fund illegal assassinations, after all.

[Squatch]

12. Not correct

We are pursuing a strategy of total poppy eradication over here. In a growing number of cases, and through the work of agricultural mentorship, the poppy crop is being supplanted by other high-value crops.

[bigtree]

15. can you give me an idea of how much progress the Agri-forces are making?

I've read about some community success stories, but I imagine in a country so large it must be a daunting task. How's the protection from reprisals, if there are any?

[Squatch]

21. For obvious reasons, I cannot go into specifics

but you are correct, it *is* a daunting task. Reprisals for any strategy that is backed by coalition forces are not commonplace, but they do occur.

Afghan security forces and agricultural mentors are, however, making headway in providing alternate solutions that do not involve growing marijuana or opium. It's just going to take time...(yeah, I want this to be over as soon as possible, too.)

[bigtree]

26. saffron

I read where some 40,000 or so bulbs were delivered there by troops with good success. I really like the agriculture stories coming out. The guys who bring their down-home expertise and equipment to the farmers there are the best. Great hopes for their mission. Hope we can have a civilian team take over one day . . .

[Squatch]

29. Yeah...that's one success story

and the US military folks doing the agricultural mentorship are all National Guardsmen and guardswomen who own/operate farms back in the United States. And, there are other cash crops that the Afghans are adopting as a way to provide for their families and get out from under the yoke of foreign drug cartels.

[jody]

16. Sounds great & the result is "2008's estimated opium crop was the second largest in Afghan history."

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/afghanistan_082808.htm

With more successes like that, I don't see how CINC Obama's strategy for conquering the Afghan people can possibly fail.

[Squatch]

20. That's soooo "last year"

Our current strategy was only recently implemented. Maybe a modicum of patience is in order?

[jody]

25. So after seven years in Afghanistan the US is still groping for ways to reduce opium production.

I recall the US has made claims in previous years about reducing opium production and failed in each instance.

It may be wise to postpone declaring "Mission Accomplished" re opium production until it has actually happened.

[backscatter712]

45. The plan I've read about replacing opium with pomegranate trees sounds like a good one.

IIRC, it mentioned that pomegranate raked in more money per acre than opium. The one drawback is that after planting pomegranate trees, it takes fives years before they bear fruit, which means the local farmers will need financial aid (real financial aid, not the usurious loan-sharking that passes for the lending industry today) in order to make it work.

[Marrah_G]

17. Bigtree I so often have loved your posts in the past

On this subject... not so much.

I'm going to leave it at that.

[bigtree]

24. I wish you wouldn't leave it.

I just don't know how we justify, as a nation, continuing a seemingly endless assault against everyone who identifies themselves as Taliban in Afghanistan. I don't believe our Congress would have (or should have) authorized the use of military force to prevent the establishment and practice of fundamental Islam and Islamic law in Afghanistan by the Taliban. That effort to oppose 'talks' with the Taliban is being urged by some concerned with a lessening of pressure on the organization as an adjunct to the defensive mission against al-Qaeda and the fugitive 9-11 suspects as described in the original authorization. I think that conflating (understandable, reasonable) concerns about the effect of that potential establishment and practice of Sharia law with terms for a cessation of violence augers for more of a commitment (both military and otherwise) than our forces deserve. I believe we need a narrow 'mission' for our troops which would certainly be advantaged by an agreement by the Taliban to refrain from violence. That may well be a remote possibility, but I believe 'talks' are the only avenue out of Afghanistan other than the self-perpetuating military solution that's just been escalated.

[Marrah_G]

27. okay

I don't want to fight with you though. Your posts on this topic are incredibly dismissive of the violence and slavery that women face under the Taliban. They are treated worse then animals. I don't know if it is because you don't understand the extent of it and think its the same as they way women in say Iran are treated or something else. I would like to think it is just lack of knowledge. To many times this is dismissed as " well it is their culture"

It is NOT their culture. It is a culture WE perpetrated onto the beautiful women of Afghanistan. OUR country;s actions put these monsters into power. Most in Afghanistan hate the Taliban... but even more so they FEAR the Taliban. The Taliban have the money and the weapons and will use them freely as they have no respect for human life. They are monsters. Women are bought and sold, used up and thrown away, forbidden even to feel the sun on their skin, to hold a conversation, to receive medical care. Donkeys are treated with more care.

What the women face there is more horrific then any of us can imagine.

[cali]

31. uh, no. it is not something that was largely perpetrated by the US

You seem to completely discount the invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S.S.R. Furthermore, the seeds of the Taliban are indeed indigenous to the culture, though it can be said that the actions of external agents germinated those seeds. The Taliban is not, as is often mistakenly thought, simply some group from some place else. Anf furthermore, there is tribal support on a fairly broad scale withiin Afghanistan for the Taliban. Yes, the U.S. supported groups fighting the Soviets, but it's a vast oversimplification to claim that the U.S, perpetrated the Taliban's crimes.

[bigtree]

32. I don't mean to be dismissive of any of that

We certainly did support the Taliban into power.

There's been discussion by activists and advocates of finding ways to include women in any negotiations. I found one group the other day UN Development Fund for Women, 'UNIFEM' Afghanistan', whose president had made that suggestion. Rep. Jan Schakowsky echoed that at a conference with UNIFEM and other groups last week.

[Marrah_G]

33. I would like to see that happen

But before we leave we do need to make sure that the balance of power has been shifted AWAY from the Taliban and back into the hands of the Afghanistan Government.

I realize that culturally women probably won't be seen as equal there for quite some time, but we have to at least do our best to ensure that they are given basic rights. Like the right to step out of their homes without a close male relative, a choice in whom they marry and when they marry, the right to an education and a career, the right to feel the sun on thier face if they so choose, the right to speak outside the confines of their immediate family, etc.

[Mari333]

30. I agree with you and imo its time to leave yesterday

we shouldnt even be there, its not the responsibility of the United States or any other world power to stick its nose into any other country's business nor occupy their lands by force.
Should have never gone in, should not be there now. period.

[jody]

35. U.S.: Plan to Split Taliban Lures Obama Deeper into War

U.S.: Plan to Split Taliban Lures Obama Deeper into War

WASHINGTON, Mar 16 (IPS) - Advanced reports on the Barack Obama administration’s strategy to "peel off" a majority of insurgent commanders from the "hard core" of Taliban suggest that it will be presented as a political route to victory in Afghanistan that would not require U.S. and NATO troops to win militarily.

But experts warn that the strategy is unlikely to work. And by appearing to provide a political route to victory, the strategy is luring the administration into a renewed commitment to war in Afghanistan and diverting it away from a deal with the Taliban leadership aimed at keeping al Qaeda from having a presence there.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

But that extraordinarily optimistic assumption is not shared by most experts on the insurgency in Afghanistan. A report by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times last Wednesday quotes "several Western diplomats and officials in Afghanistan, including those already in contact with the Taliban" as saying that attempts to split off individual commanders or groups from the Taliban leadership "would not work."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In contrast to the reported premise that most insurgents are motivated by material gain, most specialists on the insurgency emphasised the dominant role of Pashtun anger at foreign military operations in their locality killing members of their family or tribe.

Signe Wilkinson captures the Pashtun record in the following cartoon.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. None of the above. It is an exit strategy to avoid losing face.

A sort of 21st Century version of "Peace with Honor".

Afghanistan, like Iraq, was a misbegotten attempt to wreak revenge on a small group of fanatics. By any rational measure both ventures have been dismal failures.

Now the strategy is to escape the quagmires by claiming some sort of "stabilization" by setting up a faux peace deal a la the Geneva Accords that provided Nixon/Kissinger with cover.

The recent proclamations of a "change of course" and "the war in Afghanistan can't be won militarily" are just greasing the skids for the withdrawal.

[backscatter712]

46. If face-saving politics gets us out of that quagmire, I'm happy to play along.

just so long as the end result brings our troops home and has some way to keep the Taliban's batshittery down to a dull roar.

[Echo In Light]

39. Phony "war"

[ieoeja]

48. This is a wedge issue (between Al Qaeda and the Taliban).

Anyone in the Taliban who advocates cutting a deal with NATO immediately becomes a target for assassination by Al Qaeda. Could this cause a full scale rift between the two?

Al Qaeda needs the Taliban for sanctuary. The Taliban needs Al Qaeda for money. Both would have difficulty operating without the other.

That said, I don't see how we can, in good conscience, cede the non-primitive inhabitants to the Taliban. So any deal we make should be limited. There are regions of Afghanistan where women have lived under Talibani type law for centuries just as they have in Saudi Arabia and a subset of Iran. What was so horrible about the Taliban was their violent expansion into non-Taliban regions.

If they would be content with control over their ancient territory, I would have a difficult time arguing against that. As long as genocide* is off the table, I think this is the best we can hope for.


*Yes, I am serious about genocide. Genocide has worked many times throughout history.

No, I am not going to volunteer because (1) we're not going to do it, and (2) I'm too old now. Were I twenty years young, and were we really going to do it, then I'd have signed up in a second. But then I'm a guy who dropped my Marine Corps ambitions when Reagan got elected because Conservatives historically talk loud and carry a small stick. Ask Germany, Japan and the Old South how they feel about Liberal US presidents. There is a reason the worst thing you can say about a military general is that he is too conservative.

[bigtree]

50. right. an open deal would be risky

That's why there's so much interest in what Mullah Omar says. The initiative to stop the violence would have to come from the top, or be sanctioned by Taliban 'leaders'. I think what we're getting now are Taliban splinter groups' leaders speaking for themselves in opposition to talks. The U.S. isn't going to abandon their 'mission' there, so the best I think we can hope for is to draw as much of the population away from the Taliban and into support for whatever process of elections and government Afghans can manage.