Comments on: More Afghanistan

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:15:32 +0000

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.

By: Benj

Benj — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:44:03 +0000

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?

By: blert

blert — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:10:11 +0000

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.

By: Wadeusaf

Wadeusaf — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:42 +0000

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.

By: sirius_sir

sirius_sir — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:45:44 +0000

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

By: sirius_sir

sirius_sir — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:42:48 +0000

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

Precisely.

By: sirius_sir

sirius_sir — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:40:23 +0000

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.

By: Lifeofthemind

Lifeofthemind — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:28:26 +0000

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.

By: Lifeofthemind

Lifeofthemind — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:16:56 +0000

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.

By: E. Nigma

E. Nigma — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:16:15 +0000

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.