Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Afghanistan is lost, counterinsurgency (COIN) has failed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:44 AM
Original message
Afghanistan is lost, counterinsurgency (COIN) has failed
From the Rolling Stone article. Afghanistan is lost, COIN failed. Obama's escalation has failed. We are bogged down in an endless war. Interestingly, from the article, a senior military official admits to the possibility that they could ask for another surge of troops next summer.

Obama needs to seize this opportunity to end the war in Afghanistan. Not just fire McChrystal, not just change the strategy or the mission. End it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236#?RS_show_page=0

(snip)

In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 – a record that has created tremendous resentment among the very population that COIN theory is intent on winning over. In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up, and in April, protests erupted in Kandahar after U.S. forces accidentally shot up a bus, killing five Afghans. "We've shot an amazing number of people," McChrystal recently conceded.

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths.

(snip)

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on," says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing."

McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the general has a 45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The atmosphere is tense. "I ask you what's going on in your world, and I think it's important for you all to understand the big picture as well," McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal says.

"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says Hicks.

McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to lead," he tells the men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside." Then he spends 20 minutes talking about counterinsurgency, diagramming his concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He makes COIN seem like common sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We are knee-deep in the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer has the initiative – "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to the talk he gave in Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds among the soldiers. "This is the philosophical part that works with think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies."

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says.

(snip)

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."

(snip)

Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me.

Back in Afghanistan, less than a month after the White House meeting with Karzai and all the talk of "progress," McChrystal is hit by the biggest blow to his vision of counterinsurgency. Since last year, the Pentagon had been planning to launch a major military operation this summer in Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the Taliban's original home base. It was supposed to be a decisive turning point in the war – the primary reason for the troop surge that McChrystal wrested from Obama late last year. But on June 10th, acknowledging that the military still needs to lay more groundwork, the general announced that he is postponing the offensive until the fall. Rather than one big battle, like Fallujah or Ramadi, U.S. troops will implement what McChrystal calls a "rising tide of security." The Afghan police and army will enter Kandahar to attempt to seize control of neighborhoods, while the U.S. pours $90 million of aid into the city to win over the civilian population.

(snip)

Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Saboburns Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Perpetual War"
Edited on Wed Jun-23-10 07:59 AM by Saboburns
'Winning a war is not possible'

These things, then, take me back to my childhood and Vietnam. I'm sorry my country destroys other peoples. I wish I could stop it, I can't seem to ever be able to.

9 years now

It has always been madness and it will always be madness. I mean us now, how we see, treat, and kill each other.

A terrible aspect of a goodly number of us humans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.
This is exactly the opposite of how Republicans feel. They believe the more people we kill the more we frighten the enemy away from attacking us..That is why they think Bush*/Cheney kept America safe..For expressing that sentiment alone I would think Republicans would abandon him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. How many more people are going to die for yet another mistake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's an immoral, unwinnable war. Stop it now!
Obama had no business continuing it. Stop it now! There's nothing honorable about killing innocent people and creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. Rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Weren't there a bunch of cheerleaders praising this strategy some time ago?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yeah, I'd like to see a link to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. arcadian, do you mean like this stuff?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7821658&mesg_id=7821658


Talk about trips to the dentist, oy vey!

Then there was the lovely submission in January of which I quote and link:


"Why I support the current Afghanistan Stategy
There was another post that asked that question and the answer got so involved I figured I would post it on it's own. So why do I support the current Afghanistan strategy?

14. My support is based on some moral convictions and appreciations of the current situation. First off we can't undo what has been done. That means we can't go back and make Bush try diplomacy to have Al-Qaeda turned over before invading. We can't undo the years of neglect that turned an early win into near defeat.

The real question is what would have happened if we had ordered an immediate retreat. We first off at the time complete and immediate retreat was advocated there was no way the government would have stood. So that means it was a given the Taliban would have regained control of the Country in a quick and bloody conflict. We also can safely assume that those that supported the US or were part of the current Afghan government would have been punished severely or killed by the Taliban. We know the hard won rights of woman to an education and other rights would have vanished.

We also know from past experience that the Taliban has and we know they still have a warm relationship with Al Qaeda. So we know that Al Qaeda would have then had a safe heaven in Afghanistan. We also know that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been working to undermine the nuclear armed Pakistan government. If Afghanistan was allowed to fall under Taliban control the Pakistan government would be at far greater risk. A nuclear armed Taliban (or Taliban like) controlled Pakistan is one of the world's worst nightmares.

No one likes war, no one love war, but there are times when it is the best option available. As Stephen Cobert said this week "what has war solved other than slavery and fascism?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7893520&mesg_id=7893520




There you go, served up with relish



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyLib2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. Recommended with fervor!


:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. Campaign 2011 will be all about a 2-3 year plan to end this war
I don't see any change coming until then except a possible further escalation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
9. Duh! The stupid it burns. Dumb ass americans.
You just don't get it. They will never stop until we "infidels" are out of "their" land. You're fighting their religion and you'll never win. They do not want to be secular. If you really wanted to stop terrorism you would pull the military out of all Muslim countries. Sure it won't stop terrorism but it will reduce it greatly ...except for all the new terrorists created when we kill innocent people ...DUH! Second: become totally neutral with the Israel thingy. Stop the support for either side. Stay the fuck out of it. It's not our problem unless you want to make Israel the 51st state. For fucks sake ....pffft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
10. graveyard of empires; we need to leave now; US casualties are highest ever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. I am taking bets on when Petraeus requests more troops.
I say we hear about it first in the spring of 2011.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jkid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. It's time to go.
The US has wasted more money on Afghanistan and that money could have been used for other projects at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC