33 Comments

1. Michelle Renee:

He doesn’t realize that the mindset over there is all about “face”. Pok-eee-stohn loses “face” every time the CIA let’s a hellfire loose inside their “border”, even if the border exists solely on paper and is really in the hands of the Taliban.

Mar 29, 2009 - 9:27 am 2. vanderleun:

I think he realizes all he needs to realize. What he needs to do is end a war in a defeat. To do that he has to engineer a defeat. Iraq is already, in the public mind at least, in the win column. So how do we engineer a defeat?

1) Reinforce, but only lightly.
2) Tighten the Rules of Engagement.
3) Set “goals” and a “timetable” going in. Make sure the goals cannot be achieved with the resources available in the time allowed.
4) Alienate the powers that control the supply routes. Make protecting logistics consume most of the “reinforcements.”
5) If land supply routes go down, make a valiant “Kennedyesque” resupply “effort” with an airlift for a short period.
5) When goals are not met and airlift fails announce that you’ve given it the old college try and must regretfully withdraw.
6) Make sure you withdraw using plenty of airpower, with lots of large helicopters at the end taking off from Kabul.
7) Announce at around the same time that your soft diplomacy has born fruit in Iran and that Hans Blix and the Mullahs have agreed to UN-type inspections of 20 square blocks of downtown Tehran.
Mission accomplished.

Mar 29, 2009 - 9:57 am 3. sirius_sir:

But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists.

If that be the case, then it is imperative that Pakistan first ask for our help.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that request has to this point been forthcoming. Instead we get this nearly constant kevetching about violating Pakistan’s sovereignty.

It has long been my contention that the Pakistan government and whatever part of its population wishes to retain and/or develop a democracy based on classical liberal values needs to understand the existential threat to its survival comes from within, not from without. (Meaning, among other things, something other than–though not necessarily apart from–U.S. predator drone strikes that is the problem.)

Until the government of Pakistan openly asks for our help and is willing to openly engage with us in a counterinsurgency effort meant to secure the safety and gratitude of the population and to also (not merely coincidentally) defeat the threat to its own existence, then the U.S. will continue to be portrayed as the bad guy in this equation. Which is fine as long as the real bad guys don’t end up winning; which, given the present framework is all too much a possibility for my liking.

Mar 29, 2009 - 9:59 am 4. Chip:

vanderleun,

Exactly. But I fear he’ll want to throw in a few thousand extra American deaths to get his point across. I’m not sure it’s too late for Obama to spike Iraq and blame it on Bush. It’s not as if the media will hold Obama to account for anything.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:29 am 5. Habu:

I think the US has extended PC so far that some people feel the need, during a war, to worry about whether someone will lose face or that collateral damage might occur , or that a civilian might be killed.

It must be kept in mind that most of the world doesn’t have access to the news resources we do, thus most countries populations are highly manipulated. eg. Google agreeing with China to manipulate their site, which they also do here in the US., or CNN as Pravda.

The point is that if you are going to war on someone you bring the house. Not the garden hose, not just the shovel, but everything necessary to WIN unconditionally.

I believe the young men joining the armed forces today should be presented with a “Truth in this Engagement Policy” they should be forced to read and sign that outlines that they are putting their life on the line for a limited objective, not victory. That they will be constrained, even in the heat of battle to ROE’s promulgated to achieve not victory but an often insipid two point takedown for which they might perish.

Since WWII no nuclear weapon has been used in combat. The major powers all fight proxy wars and when irradiating an area is called for such as the NW tribal areas it is dismissed in favor of building another casket by some porcine, overeducated, never seen combat, nomenklatura in DC.

It is no wonder a caustic cauldron bubbles just below the veneer of our own country. The citizens can see the absurdity in many of our military and economic policies.

But don’t worry. The Chief Resident is pushing to silence the Rush Limbaughs and strip the population of guns and ammo…we’ll be much safer then and easier than ever to herd over the cliff. His minions are gathering names as I write this.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:31 am 6. E. Nigma:

I will go out on a windy limb here and make a guess that sometime in early 2002, the Bush Administration realized just how little they could accomplish in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates was not around then (in the Administration), but I am sure he may have knowledge of just what was decided.

There has to be some sort of un-orthodox solution to establishing a legitimate government in Afghanistan, that will not look like similar governments. It cannot be a centralized government as we understand it (which might make it impossible for the present denizens of the Executive in this country to even imagine), but somehow, it can be done.
Next find a way to defend the frontier between the Northwest Provinces of Pakistan and the Afghan border. Patrol drones, mountaintop firebases, chopper reconnaisance, whatever.

And making drone strikes in Pakistan after giving their government foreknowledge is only crazier than doing it without. This policy will lead to a disaster. Are they knowingly fostering a civil war in Pakistan (not that it would be an entirely bad thing, but…)?

Diplomats, government know it alls, think tank denizens. What does the professional military think of all this? We can’t use the epithet “neocons” against them, but do they truly think that they can remake the world with hard and soft government power?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, or so I was told as a child.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:35 am 7. Habu:

Buddy tovarich,

As you know it wouldn’t be the first time I have miscomprehdabled something. Apologies for having done so.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:36 am 8. Alaska Paul:

If we consult the Paks about a possible drone-zap, the Paks will tell our targets and they will disburse.

I think that vanderleun in comment #2 sums it all up. Not nicely, but sums it up. The Big O thinks that if we bend over for everybody in a global sense, the so-called World Community™ will love us. Well, it is a mean, nasty world out there, and that attitude has “chump” written all over us.

I feel for anybody in the military right now.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:41 am 9. vanderleun:

I love it when the Belmont Club does my prep work and the heavy lifting. I’ve fleshed out my not so nice concepts over at:

Afghanistan Bananistan: The 10 Point Plan

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/terrorwar/afghanistan_ban.php

Adding in:

9) Mission accomplished : Just in time for, say, a 2012 September surprise: “I brought your boys home, and we’ll have enough troops for government to fill your sandbags in Fargo this spring!” Make the defeated army “your” helpful-at-home army.

10) Reallocate funding: Once you transform the army into something that fights natural disasters and not enemies, you can slash their budget to the bone. The Navy’s next since there won’t be any American power to project or protect. But, hey, you’ve just funded National Health Care so you don’t care. Make sure you’ve got a lot of burn units near major cities. You can name them after Saul Alinsky.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:49 am 10. vanderleun:

“What does the professional military think of all this? ”

Well, the flag and general officers and the Pentagon will think it stinks and go along.

What the colonels will think and do I don’t know.

Mar 29, 2009 - 10:54 am 11. sirius_sir:

Heard an Obama policy wonk on Charlie Rose the other night telling us again how the Bush Administration had tried to “win Afghanistan on the cheap” and then got distracted from achieving victory. This thought–coming within minutes of a wringing-hand indictment of the cost in blood and treasure of the Iraq ‘distraction’–seemed to me somehow less than well-considered. I wish I could have asked what the reaction from him and like-minded others might have been had Bush decided to continue on in Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan) at a cost comparable to that exacted by Iraq. I guess we might see. If so, we will also see if this C in C has the determination to succeed.

On a related note, and in the spirit raised by Habu, I would like to share something from an August 1965 National Geographic just given me by my mother who thought it might be of interest. I opened it on this intro to a piece titled “Be Ye Men of Valour” by staff writer Howard La Fay:

He was a middle-aged Scot and his name was Hugh. He had taken three days of vacation to come down from Edinburgh for the funeral, and now we huddled together in the slow, frozen queue winding toward Westminster Hall. Inside, beyond the statues of Cromwell and Richard Coeur de Lion, Sir Winston Churchill lay in state.

The Earl Marshal of England had prescribed the order of Sir Winston’s funeral, on January 30, with an eye to London landmarks closely associated with his life and career.

For five hours Hugh and I shuffled slowly, foot by cold, tedious foot, toward the hall. And he told me why he’d come.

“I was a subaltern at Dunkirk, and the Nazis kicked my unit to death. We left everything behind when we got out; some of my men didn’t even have boots. They dumped us along the roads near Dover, and all of us were scared and dazed, and the memeory of the Panzers could set us screaming at night. Then he got on the wireless and said we’d fight on the beaches and in the towns and that we’d never surrender. And I cried when I heard him. I’m not ashamed to say it. And I thought to hell with the Panzers, WE’RE GOING TO WIN!

Mar 29, 2009 - 11:11 am 12. Gaffe Prices:

“Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government,”

What about all those ‘restive’ tribal area’s in Southern Pok-iss-tawn? Not to mention Wah-zeer-isss-tawn?

“But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists.”

Perhaps he might disclose a realistic ratio as to what amount “extremists’ constitute that “sovereign government” of “Pakistan”.

Well, maybe not

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:00 pm 13. noprisoners:

sirius_sir @ 10

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:13 pm 14. Dave D.:

…Hear Hear.

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:15 pm 15. noprisoners:

Sorry! Let’s try again.

sirius_sir @ 10:

Thanks for that! It gave me goose bumps and a tear.

Recently, I had dinner with a client of mine who is a physician of Pakistani descent. Among other things, we discussed the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I asked him what he thought that we should do. He replied that we need to use nuclear weapons in the NWFP and any other areas inhabited by AQ, Taliban et al. I asked what Pakistan’s (and Pakistani’s) reaction would be. He said most of the Pakistani population would welcome it but, could not say so openly. The Pakistani government would protest publicly and thank us privately. This man is a Muslim and his father and brother still reside in Pakistan.

He referred to the AQ, Taliban, etc. as “animals”.

I was surprised. I wonder if he’s right.

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:20 pm 16. whiskey:

Let’s be clear what Obama is doing.

He’s betting it all on the current President of Pakistan. That’s a poor bet.

He’s likely to see, just as he’s bet everything on that guy, a collapse of Pakistan into Islamist and Taliban hands, after which Obama, who was as he notes constantly for foreigners, was born and raised a Muslim and has Muslim relatives, will do what he has always wanted to do:

Declare defeat, submit, and go home. Probably with some “negotiations” to free captive and humiliated US prisoners in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, on imposing “parts” of Sharia in the US.

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:23 pm 17. Lifeofthemind:

There are significant Pashtun minorities in the UAE and in the UK. This chart is from the wiki:

Regions with significant populations
Pakistan        28 million (2005) [1][2]
Afghanistan   13 million (2006) [3]
UAE            315,524 (2008) [4]
United Kingdom  200,000 (2006) [5]
Iran     150,000 (2005) [6]
India    11,086 (2001) [7]
United States   7,710 (2000) [8]
Malaysia    5,100 (2008) [9]
Canada     1,695 (2006) [10]

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:37 pm 18. Lifeofthemind:

Sorry for the formatting

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:39 pm 19. Lifeofthemind:

The terrible thing about all the retreat and defeat, the humiliations and betrayals and deprivations that the Democrats prepared over the preceding 8 years and have now begun to unleash on us is that none of it was inevitable. We had everything needed to achieve victory but a confident population and a loyal political class. We had the wealth, the population, the technology and the opportunity. We could have knocked over the mullahs in Tehran and their lackeys in Damascus, we could have crushed the barbarians in Pyongyang and in Riyadh, we could have liberated billions and lead the world into a new age of liberty and prosperity and creativity and within sight of the goal we threw it all away.

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:47 pm 20. In the Industry:

Ralph Peters is already raising parallels with Vietnam. Having seen the other guys compare Iraq to Vietnam, I’m not eager to go down that road.

On the other hand, there is the matter of sanctuary across the border in Pakistan that we can only get at with aerial bombardment (like N Vietnam). In Iraq, Syria never has the level of relations with al Qaeda that Pakistan had and has with the Taliban.

Yet, North Vietnam was never sanctuary for an attack on the continental U.S. the way Afghanistan was and the war resolution has remained uncontroversian where Gulf of Tonkin came to be seen as discredited. Much of what made Vietnam into Vietnam was the domestic politics.

In other words, BHO can still be LBJ but no Eugene McCarthys or Abbie Hoffmans are on the horizon. And without that, Vietnam would have been merely a costly U.S. victory.

Or maybe it’s time to put the Vietnam analogies to bed entirely and view this all through the prism of COIN principles and checklists.

Mar 29, 2009 - 12:50 pm 21. Marzouq the Redneck Muslim:

Alaska Paul #8

No, they will call all their friends and relatives over for a barbeque!

No Prisoners #14

I believe as the Pak Dr. does. I believe the vast majority of Muslims value life as much as Westerners. In order to win this World War those who value life must give the extremists what they want!

Salaam eleikum Y’all!

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:06 pm 22. hdgreene:

Obama said: “If we have a high-value target within our sights, after consulting with Pakistan, we’re going after them…”

I believe the Bush Administration stopped notifying the Pakistanis of attacks on high value targets in the tribal belt (so the targets will still be there when the attacks came). Apparently President Obama has reversed that policy. Hopefully he got some commitments from the Pakistanis for doing so.

I believe President Bush changed policy upon learning of attacks on the US and Europe being planned and developed. There was a series of successful strikes on planners and facilitators last fall. They must have been getting good intelligence from the locals. It could well have affected the mind set of your basic paranoid terrorist.

I think these attacks are unpopular among Islamist in Pakistan(duh) and the political left (duh, duh) but in the tribal areas themselves perhaps not as unpopular as many Americans assume, the bully boy Islamists being, well, bullies. Apparently the Taliban remain highly unpopular in Afghanistan — though that is less true in certain areas.

My concern is that we may well be prolonging the life of the truly nasty and threatening regime in Iran just to achieve a slight increase in our near term prospects in Afghanistan. Right now millions of Iranians travel to Iraq and see that nation transforming. If a tough sanctions regime would bring the mullahs to heel, and perhaps bring a reforming element to power, I’m for doing that even if the Afghan situation becomes more difficult. If Obama’s “realists” are conceding anything of significance to the Russians and Chinese, they should get Iran done first. But they don’t think getting anything much in return is realistic.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:11 pm 23. Wadeusaf:

LotM,
I am not convinced that we have thrown anything away, and neither could I suggest have the military. In Afghanistan it is the Military that is most upbeat about the plan, from what snippets I gather here and there. I cannot explain their optimism from where I sit. I do not quite understand how a successful COIN in Afghanistan will have an affect in the NWFP, unless the Pakistani Armed Forces have a real plan to overthrow the extremists. And can somehow earn the trust and secure safety for the residents of the NWFP. It will be a monumental struggle and even if the upperhand can be gained in the NWFP, the notion of timetables is somehow wrong. Yet the Move On crowd that is pushing Pelosi aside (yes that is possible) will not be satisfied with anything short of a complete withdraw and payment of reparations to anyone making a claim.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:14 pm 24. E. Nigma:

Viet Nam, as you say “In the Industry”, could have been a costly US victory. It was, sorta, until the Congress sought to suspend support for the South Vietnamese government in the last year.
Then it became a defeat.

And that is the nature of “small wars” at the periphery of the strategic crossroads of the world. We can dither around in Afghanistan for years, and make noises about “making progress”, and “fighting Al Qaeda”, ad nauseum. But when do we know we have done enough? If we pull out sometime in the future, and then in the future +5, Afghanistan still goes down the drain and becomes Taliban territory again (complete with guys putting a bullet in the head of wayward women in burkhas), whose fault is it then? Will it be in our stars, or in ourselves?
If at this point in time, Obama was well and truly dedicated to destroying Al Qaeda, I don’t think he would make so much noise about it up front. But he would try to build a bi-partisan consensus for his strategy, because it will take longer than the time he will be in office, beyond eight years if he is re-elected in 2012. That’s what Bush TRIED to do, and we can see the fruit of that effort. A rhetorical slap in the face by the media and spat upon by half the country.
I think Obama is saying all the right things today, but I wonder at his true determination to follow through on the words. When a war, any war, gets ugly, as all wars do, what will he say, and what will his loyalists think? The last few years of OIF has shown us what a good part of the population thinks of difficult wars of counter insurgency.
Hey, maybe Hollywood will make some good propaganda about the war in Afghanistan.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:16 pm 25. Lifeofthemind:

hdgreene,
The upshot of the short sighted policy you describe is that when, I did not say if, the mullahs fall from power the Iranian people will not turn to the Americans but instead to the Chinese.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:16 pm 26. Lifeofthemind:

Wadeusaf,
The only true costs are opportunity costs. We had the capacity and the opportunity for Victory. Now the military is signing on to the only war in town. Sure they can do their jobs and sound enthusiastic about it but the bottom line is that they are providing a credible layer of activity to cover an exit strategy.

In so far as it does any good, building an Afghan army and police force and starting to develop a Civil Society behind the enemy lines, it will be the unacknowledged continuation of Bush’s plan. Without the stamina to stay the course and confront the “root causes” of hatred and violence in Tehran, Moscow and Islamabad the good works done will prove as ephemeral as the Gazan greenhouses.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:28 pm 27. sirius_sir:

no_prsoners, I thought your initial comment evocatively concise.

As to the second comment in which you raise the specter of nuclear weapons, I think we are still, thankfully, a ways from going there. I’d hate to have us resort to it as a first strike measure of that magnitude. I’d rather employ a committed counterinsurgency strategy designed to both humiliate/discredit the ideology of the extremist Muslim clique and yet not alienate the greater number of Muslims who could be (and should be) persuaded to join the fight with us: as in Iraq, and now increasingly Afghanistan, so also in Pakistan, Iran, or wherever.

We should beware the allure of easy best choices. Too often they end up being the worst of the lot.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:40 pm 28. sirius_sir:

Right now millions of Iranians travel to Iraq and see that nation transforming.

Precisely.

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:42 pm 29. sirius_sir:

And, I wonder, just who should get the credit for that?

Mar 29, 2009 - 1:45 pm 30. Wadeusaf:

The bigger gamble lies in not attempting to toss off the violent extremes, because in the dance going on in Pakistan the extremes hold the upper hand by virtue of the extreme nature of their actions and the extreme terror with which they hold captive the rest of the country to their whim. The ISI built and cultivated the Taliban at first with later without our blessing. The Taliban is still the stronger tribe in the NWFP and the struggle in Afghanistan is still in doubt. If we are to be victorious in Afpakistan we must build and sustain a tribe that is stronger than the Taliban and resistant to the extremes. That is a tall order, but it can be achieved.

Of course, a “long march to the sea” to extract our soldiers and DoS warriors if executed properly could leave a lasting impression on the enemy from which they would not soon recover.

A nuclear armed nation is not one to trifle with. It is my impression that we will be in all the way or we will be out completely, and very soon regardless of timetables and without regard for the lives of innocents or the rights and remains of criminal combatants. That I think would be progress in both areas.

Mar 29, 2009 - 2:00 pm 31. blert:

The base line story is that Iran is going broke yet sees in H the opportunity to take some swag from the US taxpayers.

Most likely these gambits will come to nought since Bibi’s hand is being forced.

I noted in the Desert thread how Israel is ALREADY sinking Iranian ships transporting munitions to Gaza via Sinai. ( size unrevealed )

So a red line has already been crossed on the high seas.

Since Iran’s counter-gambit is to mine the Strait; it seems that destroying her navies must be part of any strategic move against the mullahs.

I’m reminded of the six-day war…

How Israel waited until the optimal moment and then did what had to be done.

Since hot war operations have already commenced with Iran being the aggressor party any counter move cannot be truthfully portrayed as a ‘Pearl Harbor’ strike without warning.

The H mis-administration’s decision to stand away from Israel may just be prudence as we are conflicted with our own troop dispositions in the arab world. Non-participation in Iran’s take-down means that we’re able to keep a lid on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan — hell, you name it.

Since Iran must be brought low, then this gambit is logical.

Mar 29, 2009 - 2:10 pm 32. Benj:

Wade – just a quick follow- up re your response to my post re Condi and Gates’ apparent approbabtion of O (and crew) on that other thread – Wretch is Working this weekend!…Glad to see you noticing the military isn’t contemptuous of O’s plan. He’s worked on that (as anyone who’s listened to h is speeches/comments and talk re vets etc. knows…) I don’t have enough knowledge to offer a useful opinion re Afghanistan – But I’ll allow I was afraid of the TIMES piece today affirming Biden’s influence on this front. I do remember (with fear and loathing) Biden’s (and that longtime Timesman’s) foolproof plan to break up Iraq! On the other hand- with the exception of John Burns – the TIMES has basically got EVERYTHING wrong about Iraq – from WMD at the top to the Election of 2005 so…- I figure they’re probably WRONG about Biden being the Big Man on Afghan…I’m guessing O is the driver here – PS did you read the Kilcullen stuff on the Surge?

Mar 29, 2009 - 6:44 pm 33. Dave:

Heard one piece of possible good news out of Pakistan. A judge (Supreme Court Justice?)
that had been driven out of the country returned to huzzahs.

If we are lucky it may mean that some internal Paki developments are moving our way.

The underlying problem with that country would seem to be that Pakistan is on welfare and lives from handout to handout. Over the decades the State Department has been particularly guilty in ass-u-me-ing that the way to keep a country on our side is to make and keep it dependent.

Do need to correct all that, pronto.

Mar 29, 2009 - 9:15 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.