How do we win in Afghanistan? How do we we lose? Are we looking at the "Afghan Horizon?"

[Are_grits_groceries]

1- The rationale for fighting in Afghanistan has been to defeat Al Qaeda and prevent its strengthening.

2- The war that was started 8 years ago in Afghanistan to achieve this purpose was subsumed by the war in Iraq where Al Qaeda never was a faction.

3- The war in Afghanistan was the place to concentrate our efforts, but the region was ignored for years.

4- We cannot unring the bell and return to the conditions 8 years ago. Many people are still looking at the Afghan war through an 8 year old prism. It distorts the reality of what is happening now, and leads to a path to fight the 2009 conflict with an older plan.

5- The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not synonymous. They are 2 different entities with different purposes. The Taliban will not necessarily defer to Al Qaeda if they bother with them at all.

6- The Taliban want to be left alone to take over an entire country and possibly a region. They are making major attempts to destabilize Pakistan.

7- Are the Taliban's actions in Pakistan a true attempt to take over that country or is the endgame to force the US to pullback in Afghanistan and shift to reinforcing Pakistan? Will the Taliban generally forget Pakistan if we are not in Afghanistan with a major effort to defeat them?

8- Can we use a "deep strategy" which uses a smaller amount of men and is designed around special ops missions to act against defined targets in order to keep Al Qaeda at bay and the most militant Taliban leaders on the run?

9- While we are tied up in the Middle East, what prevents Al Qaeda and other groups from forming and planning in other countries?

10- With our economy in such dire straits, can we afford the massive layout of money to continue this war when so many problems at home need to be addressed?

11- The Afghan people apparently have no love for the Taliban, but we aren't overwhelmingly welcomed either. The government under Karzai is corrupt and not an effective ruling body. How do you even attempt to put together a country with so many factions and alliances between who knows what groups?

12- What are we doing so differently from other attempts to control Afghanistan that have always failed?

Warfare is on a quantum level. In quantum physics, the act of observing or measuring an experiment affects the results of the experiment. By interacting using measuring, you change what happens.

By being in Afghanistan, our presence affects all groups in different ways and makes predictions of outcomes iffy. We make assumptions on what will happen if we aren't there. Right now, groups interact in certain ways partly because of our actions. If we leave, how do we really know what the new dynamic will be?

Some people predict that X will happen, and that certain paths will be followed to our detriment. Others predict that Y will happen, and the results will be either positive for us or neutral.

There are so many moving parts how can anyone make a reliable prediction?

We were assured years ago that if Vietnam fell that it would be a domino effect and other countries would all start to fall. It didn't happen.

Imagine that you are playing on a slope. You are at the top of the slope rolling down a variety of objects. They are different sizes and shapes. Some are magnetic and some have sharp edges. They tend to act in certain ways and react to other objects according to the properties of each.

You have set up a fairly homogenous group of objects that move in reaction to the objects coming down the slope. This group affects the dynamics of the flow and the objects. Suddenly, you remove that homogenous group that has been there affecting the other objects.

Now what happens? You know how those other objects reacted, but they were always reacting that way with the homogenous group present. Why do you assume that they will react the same way if that group is gone?


Stanley McChrystal’s Long War

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/magazine/18Afghanistan-t.html

What does he see that assures him that he can create a stable country when it has never been done before?

IMHO he cannot plan it with the thought of using endless amounts of manpower, money, and time. He is a military man
trying to win in some way that is indefinable except as a stable country. He can't get there. That stable country is the "Afghan Horizon." You can see it, but you will never reach it.

[unhappycamper]

1. It's quite simple.

Declare victory and bring them home.

on edit to add: We lose by remaining there.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Ah yes...The George Aiken strategy.

I vote for that.

[unhappycamper]

3. If you're talking about the Vermont George Aiken, thank you. n/t

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. Yes, the Vermont George Aiken. nt

[jeanpalmer]

5. We lost the day we set foot in there

because the whole thing was built on a lie: that we needed to conquer all of Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda. The correct strategy was to form a task force of intelligence personnel, special forces, and the FBI to quietly eliminate Al Qaeda leadership. There were only a few who really made any difference. Eliminate bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and you've taken care of the leadership and most of the problem. Al Qaeda, as a force intent on attacking the US, probably would disappear with the elimination of those people. Bin Laden is the main guy.

If done quietly, this could have been accomplished in a matter of months.

But since we didn't do that, the problem still exists to some extent. But the strategy is still valid. That's why we should withdraw and implement that strategy.

Here's a link to a military officer who advocates just such a strategy.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48875

A better approach would be to remove our military forces from the ME altogether. That would take away the motivation AlQeda has to attack the US. Spain tried that approach by removing all its troops from Iraq after the Madrid train bombing . Interestingly, AlQaeda then announced that it no longer had any reasons to attack Spain, and terrorist attacks ceased. That's the approach we really should try. It solves the problem for the long term. Think of all the crazy security measures adopted after 9-11 that would become unnecessary, and the $billions we would save..

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. I read that yesterday.

Here is another article:
A War of Absurdity by Robert Scheer
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091007_a_war_of_absurdity/

One group has always maintained that the best approach was not a military one. It should be based more on a police approach.

We are just rearming the entire area with fraud and whatever other practices that are rampant among the nobid contractors.

[tazkcmo]

7. I'll tell ya how ya win.

First, ya have to establish a good ground game. A consistent and effective ground attack not only allows you to penetrate into enemy territory, it also opens up the air attack allowing deeper and faster attacks behind enemy lines. Of course, true winners also employ an excellent defense and special teams which brings me to the key to "victory" in Afghanistan...punt.

[flyarm]

8. get the f out now..that is how we win! There is no other win possible! eom

[Sinti]

9. I think we have to start by being honest with ourselves about the situation

McChrystal says he "sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country, but says the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/mcchrystal-no-major-al-qa_n_283634.html

So the initial reason for our invasion is no longer applicable. If they actually have "close links to insurgents" they have them because we bombed the bejezus out of the villagers. For every citizen you kill you leave behind brothers, sisters, parents and cousins who now HATE you and want to kill you. The more people you kill, the more people you will have to kill to stay alive. Even a 5-year-old would recognize this, it's like saying a blue crayon colors in blue.

If you can find an honest broker in Afghanistan you can sit all parties down at the table and negotiate a peace. I'm sure they have regional leaders and such who only want the good of the people. If you want to leave and worry about what happens next, open talks such as this and then proper elections would allow you to worry less about the future of the country.


I think the elephant in the room here that no one wants to address is how we got here in the first place - who is al Qaeda and where did they come from, and how did the Taliban get control of the country. The truth that we need to face is that we used these people like chum to attract sharks in the '80s. The average Afghan citizen is completely forgotten in all discussions about this war.

We used the lives of citizens of this country to give the Soviets their Vietnam back in the '80s. We lured the Soviets in there, and kept them there for a decade, until there was nothing left of Afghanistan but rubble and blood. The vast majority of people don't quite get the enormity of that action. The people who did it are still quite proud of themselves.

How do you make enemies? Kill their friends and destroy their stuff is a good way to start. Al Qaeda used to be the Mujaheddin, they were our tool/trap keeping the Soviets there blowing stuff up - we may not yet fully understand what we did there, but they do, they saw it up close and they may genuinely think we're the devil now.

When the Soviets left, the Taliban filled the power vacuum. The Taliban is a bit player in all this, IMO.

If you have enemies throughout the Middle East it is because you have shown little to no respect to the people living in the Middle East. They are human beings, too. I realize you can't undo the past, but if you were help them rebuild their homes, and redevelop their agriculture to grow something other than poppies, you would make friends. The action would have repercussions, of the good kind. It would make it harder for any terror organization to recruit, if we only respected the average citizen living in Afghanistan and other countries.

Personally I think we need to drop the Love Bomb - the Love Bomb ends all wars. We could drop in consultants on sustainable ag, corps of engineers guys to help guide the rebuilding process (they are very good), and join the UN effort to generally help them rebuild rather than destroy.

Help the people and your enemies disappear like the darkness at dawn. If you must kill someone because they're trying to stop you from fixing what you broke, use special forces and do it quietly and carefully. Many people would shoot this down as nation building.

Most peaceniks I've listened to feel we should just pull out, come home, and leave them the hell alone. This is a better option than continuing to kill innocent people, IMO - but it leaves us in the position of having helped to destroy this nation twice, which sits heavily on my conscience. This is also how you make new enemies.

OTOH, what do I know. I'm merely a humble scribe, not a professional military strategist.

The Power Of Nightmares should be required watching for human beings
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. How are you going to help them now?

The Taliban isn't going to sit by and watch an army of "the good" do anything either. They are in get out of this country mode. That might have worked years ago, but it's a different game now.

We have effed up in the Middle East so many times now that we can never undo the damage.

If we do not concentrate on restoring the US, there won't be anything left to help anybody with. I am not in favor of withdrawal from the world. It's no longer possible even if we tried.

I am in favor of bringing those kids home from Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't a good feeling to know that the Afghans will be left in a horrible situation.

We aren't going to be granted the lost time to use and rebuild the Afghan nation into the semblance of something. It would never be our ideal of a nation, but a chance at anything is long gone unless we want to stay there until the end of time.

George Bush squandered the moment that we had to use. We don't get do-overs.

[Sinti]

14. I truly do understand your POV, and I would definitely start pulling troops out

immediately and forgodsakes stop killing people. OTOH, we are a part of the UN. They have a mission there. I strongly feel we should start supporting this mission, rather than trying to defeat the boogeyman (which we're conjuring up ourselves by trying to smite him). I think this attitude would actually promote peace elsewhere, human beings recognize right action.

Here's the link to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan:
http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx

There are roughly 750 committed Taliban fighters - the rest are mercenaries. President Obama is floating the idea of paying the mercenaries - I'd rather he pay them to build than to kill. So he's at least looking at approaches that are much more acceptable, IMO.

I come to 750, because it's 5 percent of the 15,000 talked about in this article. 750 fighters is a tough street gang, we don't have an army attacking street thugs anywhere else.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6869503.ece

edited to fix link

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Out immediately and court martial McChrystal for the Pat Tillman cover-up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Show some courage by admitting we lost and get out.

But, politicians and generals lack the courage to admit defeat, so they'll keep pouring more troops and money into a lost war to avoid (shudders) embarrassment.

[Mudoria]

13. We can't "win".

So we can get out and let the Afghani's do what they do best, kill each other and suppress their women in the name of religion. Not our problem.