Why exactly Afghanistan

Obviously, there is no intention to occupy Afghanistan at all. To me it appears that intermittent destabilization of that country helps to stabilize the entire region and, more importantly, in this particular case to discourage certain countries from supporting terrorism. If the former is the cause, then it is a good cause.

But, have you heard Wesley Clark? That sounds to me both serious and credible.

 

But that's their internal matter. And, by the way, the absence of wealth isn't necessarily a lack of happiness.

 

O.....K......

 

I should add that I don't really disagree with your main point - that occupation is useless. Just that money, wealth, trade, do bring happiness in the form of clean water, adequate food, health care, etc. It's useless to try and bring it to these people because as soon as you turn your back, the local strong man will steal it all.

 

I think if the Taliban or locals had not fought back the way they have...and Nato knowing there was a seasonal fighting that they could not stop then the story may have been different...we are leaving not because we have defeated anyone and flags are flying flowers are flowiing on our returning troops...We are leaving because we cannot stop the fighting and the casualties. If we could..we would occupy. We just can't. Some would call that defeat. I call it realisation at long last.

 

I'm not too sure if I am the only person posting here that has actually been there, but if any put stock in such a visit then my impression of the place was that they are a warrior people and will always be fighting. If there is no outsiders to rally against then among one another.

I like Afghani's but they are backasswards bunch in many ways.

KTK

 

Nope never been there...but Agree with what you say Ken.

 

Because, Wesley Clark is not credible, he is distorting the truth to advance his own political aspirations.

Urgh wrote:

I think this statement is inaccurate with regards to the situation in Afghanistan and how we got there. Initially, we had conventional warfare minded generals running the show. They did not understand how to run an unconventional war. (This goes for Iraq also) It wasn't until Generals Patraeus and Mattis were placed into positions where they could fight the war in the manner it needed to be fought that the situation turned around. The original Generals from the Pentagon on down lacked the experience or vision to do what was required. Fortunately, they had time to turn Iraq around before the political will to win was totally lost. In Afghanistan we just ran out of time. We finally, figured out how to do it, but by then our home countries no longer considered that country worth the effort.
It is easy to beat one of these nations militarily, initially. What is hard is to ever get the populace to stand up for themselves. Conventional commanders do not understand how the enemy in these types of wars work. They are trained for, and used to fighting state supported military forces and in that case once the military is defeated, more often than not the state capitulates and acquiesces to the demands and terms of the victor. Counter-insurgency wars don't work like that, because the enemy lives among the people and maintains control, like the Mafia or some other criminal organization, through murder, violence and intimidation. All they must tell the people is, "fine, cooperate, when they leave, you and your family are at our mercy." There is a dictum in these sorts of operations that "loyalty goes to the strongest tribe". To win you must go into an area, provide security, remain long enough, and kill enough of the bad guys, that the people can begin to see hope for themselves. Otherwise, you only control the area you are actually, physically, occupying at the moment.
I had a hard time understanding the concept and unlearning what I'd learned as a U.S. Marine. I was all kinetic minded. I knew you could send me anywhere, I could fight my way in, kill any bad guys that opposed me, and enforce the will of my government. I didn't really know or care what happened after we left. Politics were best left to the politicians, I existed to kill people and break things, and was the world's most accomplished weapon for performing that task.
The second part of my military career was spent in the U.S. Army, I went to the JFK School for Special Warfare and learned the theory of how to run an insurgency or counter-insurgency. Though I understood it theoretically, I really didn't understand it until I was tasked with applying it real world. We were working with an indigenous people and I was coming to despise them. They didn't think like we did, they wouldn't stand up for themselves, they did things that made no sense to me. I had more respect for the people we were fighting and killing, at least they had the nards to fight, even though they were nothing more than thugs and bandits. I made the statement one day that, "I thought we were killing the wrong people" and an older master Sergeant pulled me aside and advised me if I couldn't understand and empathize with the people we were trying to help, maybe I was in the wrong line of work. Some of my questions and his answers (paraphrased because it was many years ago):
1.) I don't understand why they don't stand up for themselves and fight. Isn't it better to die fighting than on your knees like some sheep?
You come from a different culture where you have the freedom to stand up for yourself. They have for generations been oppressed and exploited. One group in power after another. It was so with their grandfathers, their fathers and now for them. They don't know any better, we have to show them there is another way. It takes time. There are some individuals that have and will stand up. The enemy knows how to control them. Your family is at home, safe. their wives and children and brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers are here. If those that would stand up, do stand up, the oppressors will come in and rape, torture and murder their loved ones. I don't know you would feel the same way if you faced the same repercussions.

Here are a couple of "real" examples from Iraq on how this stuff works. A woman warns a U.S. patrol of an ambush up ahead. The Marines, forewarned, trap the ambushers and kill or capture them all. When the Marines leave town, insurgents return at night and boil the womans infant child alive and force her to eat it. She either does as she's told or they kill her other children.
Ramadi Iraq. The mayor is killed. Another brave Iraqi steps forward to take his place. The insurgents kidnap him and his young son. The man is tortured, his son is tied to his leg and they are both thrown from a bridge into the Euphrates river. The message was clear, don't stand up and work for the government or you will be tortured and killed, and your sons will be killed, and your family will cease to exist.

People often show more concern for livestock than for their own babies. How can you feel empathy for someone that would save their pig before they saved their baby?
We are rich countries. Even our poor enjoy levels of prosperity that many of these people would envy. The people are being pragmatic, they are following their inherent instinct to survive. They love their children, but that pig may be the difference between the family starving this winter or the family surviving. Tough choices must be made. Save the pig, the rest of the family will live. Save the baby, most likely the whole family dies, including the baby. They can always have more babies, they can't get another pig.

The surge in Iraq resulted in U.S./Coalition troops moving into areas and staying there, providing security. Casualties spiked as the insurgency attempted to maintain their hold. When the tribes saw we were going to stay and finish the fight, they started coming over to our side and began to stand up and fight the terrorists. Once the writing was on the wall it became a movement, "The Great Awakening" they called it. Once, that began, Iraq was on a path to self-governance and we began to shift our attention back to Afghanistan. Our political hand wringing over stay or pull out probably added three years to that war, because the indigenous people couldn't be sure which side to support.

 

Pricey, I dont think we differ as much as you think we do.

 

Here's an article that may interest you Tamino. Remember just like everyone else all generals are not created equal. The western militaries are controlled by civilian politicians, most of which don't know their arse from a hole in the ground, their political advisors, and when you get to the highest levels, many generals owe their position more to their political abilities as they do to their military abilities.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186492076758643.html

Much of what happened in Iraq also happened with regards to Afghanistan. The military victory came too quickly. Both countries had broken economies and we didn't plan for that aspect. How were the people supposed to fend for themselves? many of those fighting against us were not doing so for any ideological reasons, they were fighting for money, it was a job. The terrorists had the financial resources to hire their fighters. We could have, but that's not PC and carries a political stigma with the public. Instead we threw money at influential officials, ill conceived and poorly administered aid projects and allowed the enemy to control and intimidate the populace.

Here is a copy of the paper that Generals Patraeus and Mattis wrote and implemented that along with the surge turned the tide in Iraq.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=petraeus+and+mattis+paper&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Firp%2Fdoddir%2Farmy%2Ffm3-24fd.pdf&ei=T-irUdLnMobu9ASsxYH4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFe7YgsRY3ngc8alN6lhVMa3V5nAw

The Afghanis are going to have to learn to stand on their own two feet, like it or not, because cuts within our military will not allow us to do what we've done in the past. The force reductions that have taken place over the last couple of years have hit the infantry battalions especially hard. DoD has mandated which capabilities are to be retained and the infantry, that has carried the brunt of fighting these two wars are taking the bulk of the cuts. Recently, 2d battalion 7th Marines replaced its sister battalion 1st battalion 7th Marines in one of the most dangerous areas in Afghanistan, the area in northern Helmand around Sangin, Kajaki, Musa Quala, Now Zad. They deployed 300 men short in the battalion. That is a significant shortage in strength to maintain gains that have been hard fought for over the last couple years.

 

I'm glad ole' wise and powerful Urgh. You're one of my favorite folks here and a gentleman whose opinion I greatly respect!

 

Of course the CIA will on ocasion sell guns and drugs but proposing the US and allies have stayed in Afganistan to finance the same is ..... (trying to think of an acceptable term give board policies and I can't so fill in the blank)

Harsher than I would have been if I had realized you were a poster here. I thought the term refered to some blogger or organization.

While it is landlocked it does indeed have a government (admitedly an incredibly corrupt one whose power is distributed more locally than centrally), It does have some assets and in particular minerals. The Chinese are even building a railroad into it to access said minerals.

It's been a battleground probably prior to the 19th century BC. It's on one of the best land routes connecting China, India, and points west.

I'm not sure the Saudis are our "best buddy" but don't see why their attitudes in this regard should impact our actions in Afghanistan.

 

I do not believe we have stayed or started Afghanistan because of drugs. It is because of politics, oil, minerals, drugs. Probably in that order....
Because the drug trade there is so all encompassing, I do think that "while we are here", we take advantage of what is available in order to make money/allies/connections... Drugs secure things money can't...So yes, would say opium is sold for profit, and those hidden profits are used to finance under the table programs.
Weather it is used to buy off warlords to not attack our troops, payoff for info on combatants or whatever. Think that the opium trade plays a significant part in our dealings yonder...It plays a significant part in the Afghani's lives, so why not ours while we are there?...This blonde's opinion.

 

Firstly let me applaud USMC Price for yet another masterpiece.

I suspected that the Cousins had learn to do "insurgency" when I watched a program on the US pacification in Iraq and I was very impressed (and I know it is TV) with a US Captain assuring Iraqi Chieftains of his armed support for them but also handing out large amounts of cash! I thought at the time that the British Army would need to look to its laurels in an area were it justifiably believes it is very good. USMC's description of modern US Army thinking and training fully confirms this - excellent, well done (and I am trying not to be patronising).
.
But back to Iraq v Afghanistan. They may both be Moslem but I would suggest that there are more differences than similarities between the two.

Without going into a long list - Iraq is rich, has large urban population, an educated class and has been occupied by foreigners (Ottoman and British) for hundred of years, Ever since it has had one strong man after the next, each worse than the previous - I remember in the 1950's they murdered the King bloodily and followed this up with 6 coups in 12 months. I would not be surprising that the local fellahin keeps his head down.

Afghanistan as my son-in-law (Coldstream Guards) and Nephew (RAF on 3rd tour of Iraq and Ken Kanuck) seems to say Afghanistan is almost the mirror opposite of this. The average Afghani, quarrelsome, proud, warlike and untouched by civilisation - am I wrong?

Even if we were foolish enough to attempt to bring Afghanis into the 21st Century the cost would be staggeringly enormous (and I believe we, British, have already spent 11 Billion - enough for two aircraft carriers) and Western lives lost high and time scale at least a generation.

When all this started out as a desire to eliminate Bin Laden and destroy the training camps in Afghanistan - well, I am speechless.

 

But, do we really have to add anything to her misfortune? I know you're a nice guy, therefore I appeal to your sense of humanity.

 

Seperating drugs and politics or oil and politics is almost impossible. The on going problems with the Taliban have played a part but they have become throughly entertwined with the drug problem. Minerals not so much, the Chinese are getting most of those since they don't mind paying large bribes.

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say here. The US and allies have been destroying drugs, drug processing facilities, and drub transport facilities. While some may have been siphoned off for other uses it's clear that this is a small fraction of it if any. There are other sources that are less visible for one thing.

Like what? The drug trade is all about making money.

Apply Occam's razor and this fails to pass the test. The US doesn't have to sell opium for profit to finance under the table programs, there's the black budget. Much easier, less traceable, and less dangerous than getting into the drug trade.

Most of Afghanistan is very anti drug. It's only in a couple of provences that the drug trade flourashes and even there most don't like it. The money it brings in and the fact that arms and fighters can be bought with the money is what keeps it alive. That alone means it is a significant factor in the lives of our troops as well as Afghani's. Indeed at this point there would likely be nothing left but a shattered rement of the Taliban if it weren't for the infusions of cash from the drug gangs. (Note that Afghanistan is not the only place where drugs finance Moslem extremists). The allies taking part in this would undermine just about everything we are trying to do there. It would also irritate most if not all the other allies and several other major powers as well. It's simply not worth it.

Trying to conform to the stereotype?

The problem with your question is you have embedded a number of rather false assumptions. Start with the fact that in general the intervention in Afghanistan has made life better for women there not added to their misfortune. It has also given them hope for an even better one.

 

"Trying to conform to the stereotype?"
Yep.

 

But why the chase after Osama Bin Laden has turned into action of improving a status of women in Afghanistan? Is that just an excuse to remain longer in other peoples country without an invitation?

 

More false assumptions. Helping improve the status of women is hardly a driving reason to stay there. However it is hoped a more stable and civil society will have positive impacts in regards to the decline of both islamic extremism and the drug trade. Improving "the status of women" in particular improving education both in men and women is one aspect of this and a fairly important one.

 

You're wrong; I' haven't made any assumption at all. I am just looking at the subject from the humanitarian point of view and I found utterly wrong to cause so many casualties under the excuse of helping people of Afghanistan. I am not quite sure if you would have been so enthusiastic about the intervention if your country were the target.

My country is sending troops too to Afghanistan but I totally disapprove our participation in such operations.

Right now I am reading independent sources about casualties in that war and I am slowly getting a clear picture what goes on there.