Comments on: Frontline’s ‘The War Briefing’: Doom, Gloom, and Despair

By: Jules Crittenden » Kilcullen re Afghanistan

Jules Crittenden » Kilcullen re Afghanistan — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:57:56 +0000

[...] Frontline did its recent doom/gloom-mongerfest on Afghanistan, Kilcullen was interviewed, but not very well. Hey Frontline, see above for what [...]

By: AwnLine

AwnLine — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:56:41 +0000

“Iraq was a fairly low intensity conflict with most of the major factors for progress in our favor.” from “What?:” Tell that to the soldiers’ families who have lost lives, limbs, and will suffer the rest of their lives from other traumas. And YES it is far more dangerous than Iraq because of Pakistan’s nukes.

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:26:37 +0000

Jarhead is absolutely right.

By: What?

What? — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:27:57 +0000

“now he’s strong as ever (Bush blew it) and now we have a mess on our hands that is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.”

Umm NO! I strongly disagree.

In reality Iraq was a fairly low intensity conflict with most of the major factors for progress in our favor. Afghanistan is also a fairly low intensity conflict, but there are less major factors for progress in our favor. Still all the Taliban can do is a little sniping here and a little sniping there. Just like for the insurgency in Iraq the intensity of the conflict for the Taliban is rather high. Militarily they are under a great deal of pressure and their leadership is under constant threat of death or capture.

Some commenters assume the Afghan people aren’t really on our side. That may be partly true, but those same people are not necessarily on the Taliban’s side. All we have to do is have the people hate the Taliban more than us and the Taliban will continue to be in a poor position.

As for Al Qaeda, they are being embarressed and humiliated in Iraq, and are being confronted and contested vigorously everywhere else. Al Qaeda was in it’s best position prior to 9/11 until Afghanistan fell. Now that they are forced to fight for their lives, honor, and all Muslim lands they are streched pretty thin.

By: JED

JED — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:52:19 +0000

Afganistan is win-able only with an exit plan. It is strategic in that it borders the lawless states of Pakistan where jihadism, opium trafficing, and uncontrolled but terifying tribes thrive. Afganistan was/is the training ground for the Taliban and AQ. Osama’s three pillars remain: drive out the infidel, purify the brotheren, and expand.
Opium is not a food supplement, and terrorism is more than a “security problem,” especially with WMD. The crusades have not been forgiven.
Afganistan gives Pakistan a chance to put their act together, and borders Iran to the North. The Silk Road was since Alexander, a vital cross road. It is the Europe to India connection. Russia wanted it.

By: AwnLine

AwnLine — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:49:41 +0000

Do you people that think Afghanistan is win-over-able have rocks in your heads??? You are fighting an ideology based in religeon and hundreds of years of tradition- but more importantly, we are OCCUPYING their land- if the Taliban were to occupy Indiana, would you be saying that they just need to sway the “hearts and minds” of the people by them giving us Humanitarian supplies or overwhelming them with a troop surge? The people of Indiana would never give up. Native people don’t give a sh*t about U.S./Nato hand outs, they just want us gone. Iraq is only somewhat “winnable” because it was a secular country under Hussein. I agree that we had to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we let him go, now he’s strong as ever (Bush blew it) and now we have a mess on our hands that is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. All you people with your couch side war strategies and games need to do read history. The West can’t occupy Islamic countries- it’s a culture clash that will go on for centuries. How can you ask a man to be the last one to die for “victory”? Find a way to protect Pakistan’s nukes- either militarily or diplomatically or both- and then get the hell out. Keep some intelligencia there to keep an eye on Bin Laden and take him out Moussad style but beyond that that’s all we should do. Had we had proper Airport Security to begin with, 9-11 might not have happened. Terrorism is a security problem, nothing more.

By: Jarhead

Jarhead — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:38:49 +0000

ajacksonian and John D did a better job of making the point I was trying to make. This is a light infantry fight (82nd, 101st, 10th Mt, Rangers, and leg Marines) with SF forces mixed in. We can argue about how to use those forces, but the 1st Armored Division isn’t going ride in on their tanks and Bradleys and start kicking ass.

When Obama talked about a surge in Afghanistan, I wonder who he was going to send, how they would get there, what they would do once in country, and how that would change the long-term situation. He didn’t supply any of these details.

By: John D

John D — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:16:06 +0000

What I find most amazing is that none of evaluations of the Afghanistan campaign ever mention the logistics. The saying is, “captains study tactics; Generals study logistics.”

Yeah, we could increase our troop numbers in Afghanistan. But with more troops come the need for increased supplies. It has seemed to escape the notice of many people, but Afghanistan is landlocked. It has exactly zero seaports. Also ignored, sea transport is the only effective way to transport the amount of supplies required by U.S. troops. They are not VC guerillas sqautting in the bush with a bag of rice balls and Ncuc Mam. They are pretty high maintenance.

Right now we are supplied via Pakistani ports and a never ending string of trucks stretching through Pakistan to our bases in Afghanistan. How much more can be pushed up that string? And I’m sure everyone here knows that airlift is not a realistic alternative.

How many more troops can we realisticly supply? I suppose that would include supplies for our NATO allies.

Pakistan might not be the most reliable ally, but they’re the only ones that can offer us a supply route.

Why no discussion of how that affects our efforts?

By: What?

What? — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:19:12 +0000

I saw the TV program.

I am much more optimistic than the program, Jim D, or Herschel Smith of Captains Journal. I may be wrong but I see the current deterioration in the situation of Afghanistan as minor problem that probably doesn’t get to much worse to fast. Maybe I am guilty of underestimating our enemy, but the fact is that I just don’t think to highly of the Taliban and Al Qaeda at this point. They make as many mistakes as they do achievements. What the mujahdeen did to Russia was impressive, what the Taliban is doing to Nato is not and I don’t forsee things getting drastically worse any time soon.

With a victory in Iraq, our ability to repair the breaches in Afghanistan grows significantly.

While Pakistan is in chaos, I am not so sure the situation is a tail wind for jihad. If the majority of the people of Pakistan turn on the bumbling jihadists than the Taliban and Al Qaeda are going to be in a world of hurt and that is the way I see the winds shifting in time.

Our enemies are prone to making a lot of mistakes and they just can’t afford to do that because they are so outgunned.

By: njcommuter

njcommuter — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:22:18 +0000

It’s true that Afghanistan is not Iraq, and you can’t use the same tactics. But the strategies and principles should still apply. That’s why there is an unclassified version of Petraeus’s manual and a classified version that was used in Iraq. Applying the principles is hard, and telling the enemy what you mean to do will give them an advantage.

We’re dealing with a part of the world in which our assumptions about nation-states simply don’t apply. Europe walks in the footprints of Charlemagne and Cesare Borgia; little of Pakistan and less of Afghanistan would recognize that world.