94 Comments

1. Ginny:

We might remember that victory leading a society to be opened to an invader may engender democide when the victor is an imperialist; however, not declaring victory and allowing petty tyrants to continue to dominate a country is also likely to increase democide. Believing that American imperialism kills is one of those partial truths that when grasped obsessively can blind the believer to the complexity of international relations – and the complexity of America’s role in the world. I, for instance, would prefer to be under the imperialism of America that South Korea felt to that of the North, Western Germany felt to that of Eastern Germany, post-war Japan to living in Iraq after the first Gulf War – there are, after all, historical patterns.

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:47 am 2. ADE:

ISI wants to manage the Taliban, not destroy it

Washington worries that the ISI isn’t sharing all it knows about Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.

In the ISI’s view, America makes a mistake in thinking it must solve every problem on its own.

Taliban sanctuary in Quetta…calibrated Taliban…

etc. ..etc. …

It’s beyond me. I give up. Can anybody on this blog explain to me why a 100, 1000, OK 10,000 towelheads have got the combined US/Nato forces’ knickers in such a twist. Don’t say RoE. I know that, but why are the RoE the way they are?

Based on the last post, (Second Differential = ) Intuition, is it just me that thinks that the Saudis have us by the balls until the oil runs out, and in the meantime we just have to play the game – we’ll play in Xstan to avoid having to play in Saudia Arabia. Are we just in cost/benefit optimisation (I could live with that, as long as I’m not a grunt on the front line).

Is Xstan just a front to keep the religion of Peace from blowing up Mecca, and we all have to play along until we get the oil out?

Any other explanation gratefully accepted.

ADE

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:49 am 3. Marie Claude:

I read that McChrystal prefers an “afghanisation of the war”, that afghani troops would do with the assistance of the US and Nato, besides Ramussen also said that Nato can’t afford to loose Afghanistan.

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:05 am 4. Salt Lick:

I would love, in 2012, to point to a chaotic A-stan and blame it on Obama.

Also, Withdrawal Advocate George Will earned my scorn when he lost his nerve over Iraq.

Nevertheless, three factors strongly pull me in the “get-out” direction.

1. My two-year stint in the Peace Corps opened my eyes to the difficulty of bringing progress to Third World countries (not to mention positively Medevial ones).

2. Michael Yon wrote it might take 10-20 or even a hundred years to pacify A-stan.

3. Yon was writing what I’d already heard last year from a buddy of mine, presently on his second deployment in A-stan.

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:07 am 5. ADE:

Salt Lick @ 4

Salt, I desperately implore you, and all other commenters, to ignore the Obama blame game.

We have to rise above Obama.

The question is: WTF are we doing in Afghanistan?

Now my answer is that we are providing fly-paper for Saudia Arabia.

Say it ain’t so, Joe
Say it ain’t so.
I’m sure they’re telling us lies
ain’t I got the right to know.

Here’s the music.

ADE

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:19 am 6. Nomenklatura:

‘Managing an opponent’ rather than ‘achieving victory over an enemy’ sounds like an attractive, nuanced goal if you’re sitting comfortably in Washington or Chicago.

Ironically the guy who put his finger on the problem with this approach was John Kerry, when he asked the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in relation to winding down of the Vietnam war, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” In the long run, we won’t be able to assemble a volunteer army willing to go to a place like Afghanistan and get shot at and blown up in order to “manage an opponent”.

‘Managing a conflict’, which means actually extending it for the mutual convenience of collaborators in Washington and Karachi, and continuously bleeding our armed forces to make it happen, is not what the US Armed Forces have ever been about, nor should it be. Only a politician who sees the US soldier as no more than an ignorant, expendable peasant could commit this error…

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:29 am 7. dan:

This nonsense is among the most important reasons why Obama’s apparent neglect of our relationship with India is a major problem.

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:36 am 8. ws1835:

@ dan #7,

Can anyone point to a real foreign policy issue (the global warming farce does not count) that Obama isn’t showering with apparent neglect?

Afghanistan is quickly becoming just another checkbox on a long list of soon to be crisis points. Israel/Iran, NOK/Japan, China/Taiwan, Russia/East Europe, etc. are all points of contention that could flare up disasterously at a moment’s notice. Yet Obama and his State department aren’t exactly setting the tone in any of the discussions. And in most cases where the administration has done something, I don’t see any clear strategy in play. Unless you count Honduras, where the State department has taken a clear stand, and in that case we appear to be supporting yet another Chavez clone.

Our foreign policy is getting embarrassing.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:13 am 9. anton:

The central problem in all this is that you don’t fight a war to “manage” anything. Nomenklatura has it right, it is going to be very hard to find soldiers willing to be sent to the worst places on earth if all they are supposed to do there is act as a sponge for our enemies agressive tendencies.

The essence of a soldier is that they are willing to FIGHT for their country, by definition a fight has a winner and a loser. Obama has always shunned open conflict. Heck, the first office he won in a straight-up fight was the Oval Office, he managed to scam his way through all of his other elections (and the more we find out about ACORN the more it looks like he scammed his way into the WH).

He is uncomfortable with the idea of going toe-to-toe, particulary without having rigged the game. This is why, despite having claimed to “have a plan for Afghanistan” when he was running for President and having had McChrystal’s report in hand for months, he is still waffling away. Remember that Obama declared this the “The War That We Can’t Afford To Lose”, it seems he just wants to prolong it until he is out of office.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:22 am 10. Salt Lick:

Salt, I desperately implore you, and all other commenters, to ignore the Obama blame game.

ADE — that was my point, made rather inartfully. I agree with you completely — our country’s long-term security is the guidepost for this decision, not scoring in the game of domestic politics.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:27 am 11. F:

ws1835:

Agreed. The White House and State Department are both ignoring world problems in a kind of “lets-all-just-get-together-and-hold-hands” kind of way that shows little maturation since the flower children were growing up. What is more surprising is the apparent lack of leadership from the Pentagon. My experience (admittedly dated now) is that the DOD is more than eager to fill a power vacuum in Washington. That just doesn’t seem to be happening now. Is Gates trying to prove to a Democratic administration that he can be a team player? And the generals — where are they? I’m baffled (and saddened) by what’s happening inside the beltway. F

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:27 am 12. Oengus Moonbones:

There comes a point when saying you are “managing your opponent” disguises the fact that your opponent is really managing you.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:32 am 13. anton:

@8. ws1835:
So right you are, we are always a step behind, reacting rather than acting. Following as opposed to leading. It is absurd that we let tiny but noisy countries set the agenda.

And this hog-wash of setting a date to issue an ultimatum to Iran is little more than announcing that we are giving the mullahs a three-month pass to get their bomb built before we make faces and wag our finger at them. Obama is used to doing things “Chicago-style” where everything is arranged in some backrooom strong-arm session before negotiations are begun. He is used to working with people that are (or can be made to be) looking for a deal. There just aren’t many true fanatics in Chicago, he has not dealt with somebody who spits in his “outstretched hand” and is lost as to what to do.

I agree with you dan, India should be our natural ally; world’s largest democracy, strategic position vi-a-vis trade routes and resources, same strategic opponents, very few points of conflict with us. I would be seeking to swing trade and military deals with them as a very high priority.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:35 am 14. John Work:

ADE,

This isn’t the typical BC nuanced and sophisticated response to your question, but here it is anyway.

When someone sticks their finger in your eye you have a choice: whimper or fight. Initially we (many of us anyway) chose to fight. The result was the rapid overthrow of the Taliban and the establishment of a somewhat democratic government in Afghanistan. Eight years and more of groveling and whimpering by the Left have changed our posture from fighting to bending over. The politicians’ lack of will and their imposed RoE are the problems, not the “towelheads”. We don’t have to impose a fairy tale democracy to achieve victory. We only have to make it clear that there are no sanctuaries and the cost of continuing to fight are too high (for the towelheads).

But we have become too nuanced and sophisticated to approach problems directly. So we grovel and whimper and look for ways to retreat. We tell ourselves that lives are being lost and that there must be a better way. “What’s it all for? Why can’t we all just get along?” Our enemies watch us with scorn and laughter.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:38 am 15. Marty:

Colin Powells’ “Pottery Barn” metaphor, “You broke it, you bought it,” should never have applied to Afghanistan. US interest was and remains to root out Al Qaeda, deny them a base of operations, and generally deny Afghanistan as a base for international terrorism. This did and does not necessarily require a broad-based, modern, effective democratic government that meets EU and Anglosphere standards. We shouldn’t give a bee’s fart what the Afghans do to each other, as we didn’t until 2001, as long as they know what we won’t tolerate and believe we will act accordingly.

This requires an Afghan gov’t that has effective control of its territory and understands that if it tolerates terrorists operating there it will be destroyed and replaced. It may or may not require the presence of non-Afghan troops, it certainly requires regional resources (including poltical relations allowing access).

This is what in the old days (19th-early 20th centuries) was accomplished by a “punitive expedition” such as Pershing ran into Mexico before WW1.

There should be room for discussion with Pakistan and the ISI to see if common ground can be found, since the main difference is that ISI will tolerate Afghan-based terror as long as it is not directed at Pakistan, whereas we would prefer no terror bases at all but failing that no terror directed at us or our allies.

This does not seem unbridgeable.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:47 am 16. Insufficiently Sensitive:

The President is openly working for a world “without nuclear weapons”. It will be interesting to know whether he is in a philosophical sense, also working for a world without victory.

After trumpeting “we won!” and setting out to impose a new political regime on the US that he is well aware most of its citizens have little desire for? Sure, he wants a world without US victory (as the antiwar folks are mainly against US military actions, while they fawn over the ‘armed struggles’ of others). And it’s pretty clear that his preferred tools for suppressing nuclear weapons are rhetorical – which only works against the nuclear weapons of the US, as long as he’s CIC.

Yes, he’s ‘openly working’ for a world without nuclear weapons – but doing it in such a way that the bad guys are exempted. Just like his old allies at ACORN are exempted by polite liberal society from conforming with laws enforcing fair elections, or laws discouraging street thuggery for political ends.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:51 am 17. wow&flutter:

The problems of Afghanistan seem intractable. When we talk about nation building, we usually mean re-building, converting from one form of administration to another, as in Japan and Germany after the war. However, there are places on the earth (Afghanistan and Haiti come to mind) where the majority of the populace operates without government. Rather, groups of people are occasionally subject to sporadic herding by someone with guns. In these conditions, building (rather than re-building) a nation requires the resources (see Gen. McChrystal’s optomistic estimate/request) to secure the area. Then it requires even greater resources to educate the populace. Self-governance, national self-governance, takes at least a generation, perhaps two or three, to grow out of these two fundamental but far from comprehensive preconditions. Even then, it strikes me as a long shot. Given the attention span and commitment level of the American electorate, well . . . . If we assume that the American electorate does not have the stomach or patience for nation building, what then are our objectives? How do we define victory? If we assume the President could be persuaded (see definition of long shot) to act in America’s national self-interest, what are the specific goals he should pursue? These are real, not rhetorical, questions. The more I learn about Afghanistan, the more confused and dispirited I become.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:54 am 18. ADE:

Salt @10
our country’s long-term security is the guidepost for this decision

Agreed, and linking it with Obama bashing is weakening our point.

Oengus
I’ve been at the end of ‘Managing upwards’, which I defined as submission. No wonder I’m poor. There’s a book there for you if you want to write it.

John Work
We only have to make it clear that there are no sanctuaries and the cost of continuing to fight are too high (for the towelheads)

Absolutely spot on.

With absolutely no apology or nuance,

Isn’t it bliss?
Don’t you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can’t move.
Where are the drones?
Send in the drones.

Declare war, unleash, then ‘rebuild a functioning democracy’

ADE

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:07 am 19. luddy barsen:

Flypaper –and the flypaper corollary: an offense-capable enemy force on the borders of their sanctuary has to discourage the terrorist spectaculars. which is why the Iraq drawdown is a pretty big gamble. Not quite as big as G.A. Custer’s, so far.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:19 am 20. Peter:

Invading Afghanistan has brought down Western nations before, witness the Soviets in the 80s.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:21 am 21. ADE:

buddy
My point is that Afghanistan is flypaper for the haters of Saudia Arabia, not the US, as commonly believed. The haters of Saudia Arabia are the true believers of the Religion of Peace, and include not a few from Iran and Egypt (yes, the eclipsed ones – not a position to be in the Middle East).

The US just goes along with creating flypaper in Afghanistan.

We go along with the charade because we want the Saudi oil.

I’m very comfortable with our position of wanting the oil and putting on a front, as long as we know (I had originally written speak) the truth about it.

ADE

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:29 am 22. jaymaster:

No doubt Obama wants to appease the “peace at all costs” crowd, but there’s another group of potential voters he needs to appease: the isolationist/protectionist groups, such as the Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan types.

There’s a sizable chunk of voters who aren’t big on the “D”’s socialist platform, but will still vote “D” based on isolationist/protectionist principles the “R”’s won’t tow. In fact, it’s probably the second biggest wedge issue facing the R’s after abortion.

Most of the controversial foreign policy decisions Obama has made can be looked at as isolationist and/or protectionist. While it’s not likely Obama will draw many votes directly from disgruntled I’s or L’s or R’s, he can certainly play up his isolationist cred, especially if the economy is still in the tank. And if the worst of his socialist initiatives get killed in congress, there’s less chance of the isolationist D’s leaving the fold if he keeps them appeased.

And if some sort of third party movement takes hold, the D’s can certainly play the wedge game. A third party vote will most likely be just as value able to them as a D vote.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:35 am 23. Salt Lick:

Salt @10
“our country’s long-term security is the guidepost for this decision”…Agreed, and linking it with Obama bashing is weakening our point.

I think we are missing each other, ADE. “Long term security” may be “OUR” point, but I’m not sure we agree on how to get there when you agree we “must make it clear that there are no sanctuaries and the cost of continuing to fight are too high (for the towelheads).”

When Mike Yon and my bud (who, btw, is Special Forces and almost never says “can’t”) and my experience all say this thing is probably not doable without double-bankrupting our treasury and losing thousands of our finest, it’s time to agree Obama may be on the right side, AS MUCH AS WE’D HATE TO ADMIT IT.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:41 am 24. Agoraphobic Plumber:

“And if some sort of third party movement takes hold, the D’s can certainly play the wedge game. A third party vote will most likely be just as value able to them as a D vote.”

That’s all sort of academic at this point, isn’t it? There’s not much of a difference between the R’s of the last decade and the D’s. I’d vote third party knowing that my single vote would cost the R’s the election, if for no other reason than to encourage them to get back to R principles.

And hey, I voted for Jesse Ventura. He won. The local R’s magically rediscovered their roots, and now Pawlenty is considered a possible presidential candidate. Miracles CAN happen.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:49 am 25. Lifeofthemind:

F,
And the generals — where are they?

My guess is that the generals are turning turtle. They can either resign dramatically (few will) or try to protect their own little world until the storm passes. What is extremely unlikely is any coordination that leads to a Seven Days in May conspiracy. That simply isn’t in the culture in the US military. Communication means exposure and exposure means risk. Survival depends on focused inward routinization of process. Generals who survive this will offer no new plans that would require organizational growth or systems development. They will probably get busy instead documenting the effort they are putting into base safety programs and anti-smoking campaigns.

Pakistan is like 18th century Prussia, an army with a country attached. Unfortunately for them they lack neighbors they can dominate, a population acquiescent to the concept of national unity and a Fredrick the Great. Fortunately for everyone they lack pre-21st century Germans (although Pushtuns are close) and a culture of innovation. They lack the benefits of the European Enlightenment and capital growth.

Pakistan is not an American ally. It is an ally of China and occasional client of the US. Given the conditions alluded to in the top half of my comment we can expect no bold measures that would redraw the map and decisively defeat the forces in Quetta, Islamabad and Riyadh that are opposed to Western (or for that matter Indian Eastern) Civilization. The best that we can hope for is that in Afghanistan and in Iraq the American presence will leave a residue of awareness that there is another path. Over tie that may complicate the efforts of the totalitarians to impose a gray uniformity over a fractious landscape.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:58 am 26. wws:

I’d like to see Obama start to seriously consider his non-victory options for 2012.

Even Jim Zorn hasn’t made this many bad calls.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:58 am 27. ADE:

Salt @23

Salt, you’re right.

I’m a bit like your bud, can never say can’t, but I’ve never put my life on the line. I have worked with the military, but as a civilian with the Australian military. It was a disconcerting experience. At a point in time Fred was on our project, the next day he was ‘gone to Afghanistan’. It was much closer when my son’s high school friend, who brought my daughter to her debs high school dance, was ‘gone to Afghanistan’. He’s still with us, thank God.

They live by a different creed.

it’s time to agree Obama may be on the right side, AS MUCH AS WE’D HATE TO ADMIT IT

I do admit it. a fortiori

Two conditions must be present before it is worth fighting: the cause is important, and you’re going to win.

We are going to win. Inevitably, because in this case the we is modernity and nobody can stop it. All cultures with an evolution index below America is doomed to oblivion, even the French pace, Marie Claire. But Afghanistan will take 200 years before it meets its date with oblivion.

This leaves ‘the cause is important‘.

The cause is not important in Afghanistan. Who cares about the dump? Hindu Kush, poppies, Yaks, illeterates, burkhaed women. Refuge for Obhama? Who He? Not an oil well in sight. Gimme a break.

Intuitionally speaking, I just don’t get the emphasis on Afghanistan.

ADE

Sep 30, 2009 - 9:21 am 28. RWE:

I wonder if Pakistan does not view the Taliban and their activities in Afghanistan as a kind of a “Mariel Boatlift” – a way to get rid of dissidants, criminals, and overenthused young men who have no real future in the country – and being an Islamic country they sure must have many boatloads of them.

After all, what are the Pakis going to do with those all products of the madrassas? Allowing such schools to exist give them certain leverage and maybe even some respect in the rich Arab world, but they sure don’t want to keep those unruly useless boys at home. Tell them of the land, opium, and harums available if they rout the infidel from Afghanistan – and then let the USAF teach them to sing not “I’d like to Buy the World a Coke” but rather “Please Mr., Please, Don’t Play B-52″

Sep 30, 2009 - 9:40 am 29. joe buzz:

Back last fall or was it spring when we discussed this? I suggested that we should pull the regular line folks, but leave the drone crews and some snake eaters. I still advocate that footprint but have never really been a “hearts and minds” manager. If the average Afghan wants his daughter to manage go to school, he will need to oppose the taliban whether we have a presence there or not. If someone insists on managing something let us try to “manage” losing no more limbs or folks to IEDs.

Sep 30, 2009 - 9:57 am 30. ADE:

RWE @ 28

After all, what are the Pakis going to do with those all products of the madrassas?

Er, blow you up, RWE.

ADE

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:05 am 31. Cannoneer No. 4:

How does Obama give McChrystal the resources to win victory, even if he really wants to?

Sure, more troops can be deprived of their reset time after their last tour, be separated from their spouses and children yet again, be stuffed aboard DC-10’s and flown to Kuwait or Bishkek, be warehoused in tents awaiting intratheater airlift, be dumped out in Kandahar or Bagram or Kabul. Then what?

All these surge troops need beans, bullets and go juice, nearly all of which must traverse hostile or potentially hostile territory to reach them. It all ends up on big Forward Operating Bases like Kandahar Air Field or Bagram Air Field and has to be accounted for, managed, and transported to the end users, over a rudimentary road network subject to Improvised Explosive Devices and ambush, or lifted out by over-taxed, fuel-guzzling aviation assets.

Whether the surge troops are busily beating the boonies hunting Taliban who aren’t immune from attack because they surround themselves with “innocent civilians” or the surge troops are a static guard force protecting the population, they can’t realistically be quartered upon and subsisted by the local economy.

GEN McChrystal knows all this. The surge troops he is requesting, if he gets them, will be used tactically to achieve his idea of strategic success. The Commander-in-Chief’s idea of strategic success, after nine months, has yet to be clearly articulated by this eloquent orator and his teleprompter. GEN McChrystal has respectfully informed his chain of command of his resource requirements for accomplishing his mission as he understands it.

The Commander-in-
Chief must now defecate or remove his derriere from the porcelain throne.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:08 am 32. Armeggedon Rex:

W:

How did you get your hands on all the U.S. intelligence briefing papers on Pakistani ISI motives, strategies, and internal politics? Or have you, like Mr. Yon, been talking with a large number of U.S. and allied troops on the ground in the Afghani-Paki Theater?

Yes, various parts of the Pakistani government have been playing us from almost the beginning, at least since the first Tora Bora campaign when a significant portion of Al Qaeda leadership and Taliban leadership slipped across the border into Pakistan.

Yes, they wish to have an Afghani government that is cooperative with them, and subservient in many respects. The Taliban regime under Mullah Omar was both until we pissed in their soup by driving them out of power.

Yes, many elements within Pakistan see the current stalemate situation in Afghanistan as a perfect solution to many intractable Pakistani problems. As several commenters mentioned, we provide the worlds most effective “sponge” or “fly paper” to soak up or catch the jihadists who would otherwise be an overwhelming threat to secular government in Pakistan. If we weren’t there to kill off the more ardent, militaristic and violent jihadis they would either overthrow the Paki government and possibly obtain access to nukes, although India has both redundant plans and resources standing by to prevent this nightmare from coming true, or, in order to maintain internal stability, the Paki government would be forced to clean up the Islamist mess in their backyard almost guaranteeing a full scale civil war. With the U.S. and allies cleaning up their mess, they can have their cake and eat it too!

Your interpolation of information regarding Pakistani intentions is so dead on accurate it’s scary. Do you have or are you interested in obtaining a position of very sensitive trust with the United Sta…. I mean Australian government? You should be a strategic multi-source intelligence analyst. As a paying job I mean… not as a serious hobby and intellectual recreation!

Nomenklatura certainly is correct. Such an intentional war of attrition, where American casualties are routine, with no end in sight, and no viable plan for victory or to otherwise resolve the situation is exactly counter to American military tradition, doctrine and practicality. Such a policy would wreck the U.S. military as effectively as Vietnam after killing thousands of young, brave, patriotic Americans who have the guts to raise their hand and take the oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Perhaps the destruction of both the military as an effective fighting force, and the patriotic young people is a feature and not a bug in the Obama administrations book?

Many have commented here at the Belmont Club and elsewhere asking something similar to: “If Obama were intentionally trying to wreck the U.S., without being immediately impeached, how would his actions be any different than everything we’ve seen thus far?”

At first I wrote these folks off as excessively partisan, but as time passes, and mind-blowing idiocies pile up, I’m thinking more and more that they make an excellent point.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:37 am 33. Cannoneer No. 4:

What To Do? Part One

What To Do? Part Two

The military is asking for more troops but to do what? Unless they move off the FOB’s and out into the local population they do little more than create and even more target rich environment for the various armed opposition groups (AOG) which plague the countryside. What we need are small agile formations integrated with and augmented by civilian contractors who have the ability to remain on contract for years at a time. The civilians fill the crucial role of demonstrating commitment to the local people, and front specific knowledge to the frequent rotations of military personnel. As I am fond of saying there is no other way – none. It is really that simple.
Unless the present FOB bound kinetic ops orientation is completely eliminated we will leave here in worse shape than we are now and right now my friends we are getting our collective asses kicked and kicked good. We are spending blood and gaining not one damn thing to show for it. We are spending billions of dollars we do not have and gaining not one damn thing for that either. These are facts and for a guy like me who spent the happiest years of his life as an officer in the United States Marine Corps it is most upsetting to face up to these facts. When we started this fight President Bush said “we will not falter, we will not tire, we will not fail.” In Afghanistan the military is tired; worn out by back to back to back deployments. We are clearly failing by any unit of measurement and it now appears we are faltering too as the National Command Authority waffles about why we are here and what we are supposed to do.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:42 am 34. Annoy Mouse:

“Indian experts argue that there is no way that U.S. intelligence was unaware of Omar’s longtime presence (or al-Qaeda’s presence) in Quetta. They say the CIA has tacitly accepted Omar’s presence and kept it secret — notably forbearing to use drones in Quetta — perhaps thinking that such restraint might make future negotiations easier. (Some Indian experts even claim that the Taliban are under CIA protection as much as ISI protection”

Some interesting commentary on The Corner;

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzBhNjg2NWE4NzMzY2VmMTk1YjA5YzI1ZWMzNzViZDg=

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:47 am 35. sol vason:

1. Pakistan has nukes.

2. Pakistan is full of terrorists. So is Afganistan (Pakistan’s next door neighbor). Will Pakistan prevent terrorists from using its nukes? Will Iran?

3. The next airliner siezed by terrorists that crashes into an American city will have a Nuclear bomb onboard and the bomb will destroy the city and everything that lives and Republicans will be angry.

Before we declare victory and leave, perhaps we should gaurantee the safety of our cities and take the nukes with us.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:54 am 36. Geoffrey Britain:

Sigh. Lots of evident confusion here.

Some fundamental factual premises and assertions:

Obama has no intention of trying to win in Afghanistan. Nor in preventing Iran from getting nukes. Anything he says or does to indicate his ‘resolve’ is smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show to give him political cover.

He’s an appeaser, a moral coward. Appeasers don’t fight, they run away. When they can’t run away they throw someone under the bus, ’someone is fed to the crocodile’. It’s what appeasers do. Just as Chamberlain threw Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

As a consequence, the Taliban will once again rule in Afghanistan, most probably within 3 years and will then, in all probability gain control over Pakistan as well. That means that, besides the Iranians, terrorists will have access to nukes through the Paki’s.

Russia is conducting an intentional campaign of facilitating nuclear proliferation to 3rd world countries.

We are not in Afghanistan because of Saudi Oil; in July of 09 Saudi Arabia supplied 11% of US total oil imports
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

In the soon-to-be-here-future, where terrorist groups have access to nukes, America’s ‘cultural index’ is meaningless. Rome was far advanced over the barbarians and we all know how that turned out.

With the sole exception of the US; Europe, Canada and the rest of the West are committing demographic suicide.

The second nuclear terrorist attack upon American soil will result in isolationism, fortress america and near-permanent martial law. It’s the only possible response when you can’t strike back at an enemy without a fixed location.

Russia and China are conducting a covert war of attribution against the US and, it’s working. They’re using Islamic fanaticism to attack the West and both will continue to block any unified efforts at concerted actions against rogue nations in the UN.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:56 am 37. Josh:

ADE @ 2: Don’t tell me it’s RoE

Well, not just RoE, it’s also as wow&flutter says, the amorphous goo that is Afghanistan. What are the best RoE for amorphous goo? This is the “strength” of Islam’s decentralized structure – as a first approximation, bombing any given target just makes more of it.

Nothing new here, nothing the Romans didn’t face with Carthage. And I doubt it needs to go that far, we have levels of force available at our fingertips, the Romans could hardly imagine in Zeus. But if our RoE is stuck at about a 3 on a scale of 100, and it might take, oh, an eleven or fifteen to be effective, AND a lot of nation building, well, our current politics and aesthetics are just not there for it. Note that nation building by itself is probably no good – at least, not on a decade timeframe. Centuries, maybe. In fact, it will probably happen over several decades or a century or three, if we just stand back and contain it. That’s the argument some are making for us “pulling out” – we pull out, but keep launching Predators (from where? I guess even the “pull out” requires we have a presence in the cities – to launch Predators et al, but that won’t work, our fixed bases will be shelled and the price too high, since we can’t (WON’T) take action to stop it).

So, our President, Obama, what will he make of this? Will he send in the community organizers? Offer to pay ten billion a year jizya for peace?

Stay tooned.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:59 am 38. ScenarioA:

ADE

Your final question at 2 cuts through lots of layers to the basement bedrock of a reality beneath politics. This issue is too complex for a simple answer but the closest, albeit overly-simplified, response at the bottom line is “yes.”

To your post at 21: this issue is too important to become caught up in the toxic environment of our domestic politics at this time – let’s know the truth, but also ponder the value of hypocrisy in addressing this kind of issue in the political arena. The left will not permit an honest public discussion.

To your final comment at 27: our options today in Afghanistan and elsewhere on the basic issue have been defined by a century of prior decisions.

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:07 am 39. Cannoneer No. 4:

Losing the War of Exhaustion

Only the president can ask Americans to endure years of sacrifice. Only the president can build support for a protracted struggle that, in his words, is a “war of necessity.” And, only the president can harness domestic will, popular support, and strategic patience — the indispensible elements for success — without which our efforts in Afghanistan cannot succeed.

We cannot “rise above” the strategic incompetence of the Commander-in-Chief. It’s his war now. He campaigned on it being the “Good War,” incompetently underesourced by his predecessor. He has since found out that resourcing a Land War In Asia 600 miles from the sea is a lot harder and more expensive than he thought.

He will cut & run. The Afghans already know this. This Afghan Surge is like Linebacker II. Punish the enemy until they sign a peace treaty. Everybody knows there will be no peace, just a decent interval in which to bug out with a modicum of dignity. How many of America’s and Australia’s best have to die between now and the final evacuation? How many decades will it take our fighting men to recover from this fiasco?

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:14 am 40. michaelhoskins:

Ginny @ 1. “American Imperialism” is not a given, regardless of how often ballied about. In fact, its very definition is a construct designed to fit an old term previously trashed by the left. Further, Imperialism is not in and of itself an evil. Rome, Britain and early China, were more positive than negative.

ADE @ 18. IMHO your throw away comment “declare war” has greater value than first blush. The declaration of war does not require an attack on the US. It only requires that the President be able to convince the congress of the value of the declaration. War can therefore, be declared based on…wait for it…national interests.

So. Picture this. A president (a real one) asks the congress for a declaration of war. Debate ensues. What goes on in the mind(s) of the object of the declaration?

To carry the analysis further. Several months ago I opined that a reconaissance in force into Iran, anounced publically, in advance, with start date given, and for real, would significantly alter the landscape. Iran could, 1. not resist, recce complete, no bloodshed, weak horse regime kinda hangs on 2. choose to resist at borders, mass troops, get full air power and armour treatment, regime change or, 3. Mass forces around nuclear assets, thus verifying locations, more air and armour power, more regime change. A hot potato for the mullahs.

I still believe A’stan is winnable, and its winning is a goal worthy of the effort; by doing what none before have done and by taking it directly to Islam.

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:25 am 41. Tcobb:

The real question is: who are the puppets and who is pulling the puppet’s strings?

Pakistan is the puppet master, and NATO (mainly in the guise of the US) and the Taliban are the puppets, who it plays off one against the other. It is not in their best interest to have either NATO or the Taliban gain the upper hand.

So long as the Taliban are strong, Pakistan can effectively extort economic aid and buy military technology from the US that otherwise would be denied to it.

So long as the NATO forces are in the region, Pakistan can protect itself from the Taliban by threatening to give the NATO forces permission to come in and eat them for lunch.

Its a very convenient situation for Pakistan. They don’t want either side to win. That’s why they keep changing the rules of engagement. They benefit from stalemate. They never want it to end. And so long as they get to set the rules it never will.

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:29 am 42. Subotai Bahadur:

Buraq Hussein’s goal is to plant his derriere for as long a possible on Cannoneer #4’s metaphorical porcelain throne with an absolute minimal of activity. Every casualty is a victory for him. If MacCrystal has an operational plan, and requirements to accomplish it; it can be either approved or denied. And we go from there. Obama received the report some weeks ago, but he has not “officially” received it and so he does not have to make a decision. Which is what he wants.

If Afghanistan is a sufficiently vital interest that we must fight there, then the only way is to fight according to the best strategy we have to achieve victory [a 4 letter word in the White House]. Absent that, we need to get out, and find some way to achieve our goals from outside the country. Those means will most assuredly be neither kinder nor gentler.

That is the confusion at the strategic and operational levels. If that is not resolved, we need to be out of there. But there are other problems.

Logistics is always the be-all and end-all of what the tacticians and strategists can do. If the supplies are not there, it does not matter what we say we want to do, we cannot do anything but get our own troops killed for no purpose.

Right now, we have only two ways to supply our forces in Afghanistan. One is the route from the port of Karachi running the length of Pakistan, to Afghanistan. It is vulnerable to attack the entire length by all parties. The Pakistani government, or that entity that is pleased to call itself such, is not in control of the country and functionally the place is run by the ISI, their intelligence organization that is in fact run largely by the Taliban and their allies. This is the same government that allowed the ISI to sponsor and equip the terrorist attack on Mumbai with no consequences. This is the same government that has been the willing conduit for Russian and Chinese nuclear and missile technology to our enemies and their terrorist surrogates. And this is the same government that may be overthrown by the Taliban and ISI at any moment for being too closely aligned with us.

Our supply line can be shut down by a dock strike in Karachi, let alone any actions along it.

Our alternate supply line(s) are supposedly being negotiated with either Iran or Russia. Both of which are supporting the Taliban and Al Quada, and both of which have made our ‘Lightworker’ into their personal Catamite. These are not viable.

Fantasies of being able to supply a force the size of ourselves and the NATO units by air scattered across the mountainous countryside, are just that. Assuming we even have permission to use their airspace after they cut off the land routes; we are still faced with not being able to move enough. Ponder the daily consumption of POL [Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants; fuel in other words] and our airlift capabilities in the best of times and note that we have other requirements around the world that cannot be abandoned. The only way to move bulk POL in anything like the quantities needed is ship, tanker truck, and pipeline; precisely what we will not be able to do.

Add to that the detail that our airlift capacity is tired, worn out, in need of replacements and maintenance [they have been rode hard and put up wet since 9/11] and that there is no prospect at all of any new equipment being bought by the Democrats.

Someone above mentioned George Armstrong Custer. Custer was operating within the range of what his own force could carry or live off the land and was not dependent on the Lakota and Cheyenne to deliver him vital supplies in a timely fashion. This is far worse than Custer.

Take all of this together, and toss in a dash of history. I offer the “First Afghan War”, Gandamak, and “Dr. William Brydon”. The regime are not known to be students of history. When they learn about this, they will become ardent history buffs.

If we WON’T even try to win, have no strategy, and no supply lines; it is time to drop back and punt. Bring our people out, alive.

Subotai Bahadur

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:34 am 43. Cannoneer No. 4:

OBAMA’S AF-PAK TROIKA FAILS TO DELIVER

16. This danger of adverse reaction in Pakistan has to be faced if the US wants to bring about better ground conditions, which would enable it to contemplate withdrawing from Afghanistan with honour and with some confidence that Afghanistan will not revert to its pre-9/11 position of being the rear base for Al Qaeda. Before contemplating withdrawal, the US has to destroy Al Qaeda sanctuaries, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, in the FATA, the Haqqani network and the Neo Taliban sanctuaries in Balochistan. It has to come to terms with the hard reality that this is something which the US has to do without depending on Pakistan. Pakistan and Al Qaeda are biding their time hoping that after the US withdrawal, they can move into Afghanistan once again. This should not be allowed to happen.

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:45 am 44. Tcobb:

#42. Subotai Bahadur

My father was in the US Army for twenty years. He fought in actual combat both in WWII and Korea. He was not a “liberal” by any means, but he was against the Vietnam war, or at least he got to be that way. Why?

His reaction was: don’t go to war unless you intend to win it, and then go full throttle. Anything less is treating the soldiers as disposable pieces of trash. He didn’t think we were trying to win in Vietnam, therefore we shouldn’t have gotten involved at all.

Sep 30, 2009 - 12:07 pm 45. RWE:

I agree – and have always said – that trying to turn Afghanistan into Vermont with fewer trees is a fool’s errand. Even trying to turn into Iraq is a waste of time.

The key question is, folks – and I would like some answers from y’all:

How do we not do the Big Surge and not make it look like we lost?

I think we should be doing just what Pres Bush did – but with fewer troops than now. Surgical air strikes with a wink and a nod to the Pakis when we “accidently” hit their territory.

But how do we go back to Bush II’s approach when It’s All About The O has established a position that the earlier strategy was pussyfooting around with terrorists and already has ramped up our involvement?

It’s All About The O has been wrong on so many things so far – and has never admitted one mistake – that I don’t see him ever openly going back to the old strategy.

Sep 30, 2009 - 12:27 pm 46. dan:

Annoy Mouse:

Wow. If true, what sort of idiotic game are we playing with Pakistan. What the f— is going on out in Central Asia. We’re allowing Mullah Omar to preside over Quetta because we respect his role as a Pakistani asset… and protector of al Qaeda? Why – because we need Pakistan as an ally so that they can provide the Taliban a headquarters in order to keep killing our guys, pumping heroin into the world, and raping Afghanistan? How can Pakistan possibly be our “ally” if they’re effectively the cause of our problem?

What? It’s enough to make one pray for nuclear war. As I understand it, though, it’s hard to believe. It doesn’t even make stupid-sense. Foreman should try to explain it again.

Sep 30, 2009 - 12:47 pm 47. Eggplant:

ADE said:

“The question is: WTF are we doing in Afghanistan?
Now my answer is that we are providing fly-paper for Saudia Arabia.”

I agree with this analysis. My snappy come back: Is this necessarily a bad thing?

I believe that killing al Qaeda members where ever we find them is a good thing. If al Qaeda will oblige us by concentrating their Jihadiis first in Iraq and then later in Western Pakistan then that makes our job easier. True, it was more convenient to kill them in Iraq but Pakistan will do.

One might reply that we should be killing them at the source, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Osama bin Laden wanted us to do that when he orchestrated 9/11.

The governments of both countries are nominally “allies” (yes, I know this is nonsense). However if the governments of Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia were destabilized by American action then what would replace them would surely be worse unless we were prepared to actually occupy those countries with American troops (a very bad idea, particularly with Obama as President).

Off Topic: Stock market is getting really weird. Blatant government manipulation has been going on since March but today the Feds almost lost control.

Sep 30, 2009 - 1:32 pm 48. Walt:

When Mullah Omar speaks to me
He speaks in terms of victory
And scorns the likes of those who demand peace
Where peace is just surrender-lite
And fear of darkness and the night
Lead western men to stop and holler “Cease!”
The Mullah often does relate
How Allah intervened his fate
When Ami drones were flying overhead
As racing in his car he feared
A missile soon would singe his beard
Yet missile never came as on he fled
He smiles now as he then recalls
How Ami lawyers had no balls
And cautioned that the missile be held back
For fear that someone might be hurt
And at this point he’s sometimes curt
In sneering at the courage Amis lack
In thinking that a war is won
By dropping warheads by the ton
While trying not to hurt a country’s pride
We fight the Ami to the death
We fight till we have no more breath
And soon the Ami will be Allah’s bride
We’ll win this war he says with scorn
For every death there’s ten more born
Who’ll grow to hate the Ami in his bones
We’ll take the fight to Ami’s shore
And show the light of Islam pure
And turn their cities into tumbled stones

Sep 30, 2009 - 1:38 pm 49. Charles:

imho logistics is a big part of both the problem
and the solution.

On the first proposition as to whether the US should win this war–the answer is yes. the blowback from failure is endless.

So how to win.

Therefor what the US should do is make the US troops self supporting in food,fuel and clothing–everything short of the high tech arms and communications. Wouldn’t this be cheaper than
the current long supply lines?

but that’s not the point.

the piont is to create and economy along with a bunch of afghans invested in maintaining it. then destroy the poppy economy. make sure that all those farmers have a way to get into the new economy.

this takes down the taliban base.

while doing that totally destroy al queda.

begin to withdraw. while doing that make sure that the new economy product gets new markets for the food fuel and clothing products once supplied to US troops.

leave.

how long will this process take? 5-10 years.

likely all this will fall to pieces over time but not until none of this stuff matters anymore ie the US is off dependence on foreign oil–and the whole middle east is mesmerized by the vision of the deserts being turn green by cheap desalinated water.

Sep 30, 2009 - 1:51 pm 50. wretchard:

How did you get your hands on all the U.S. intelligence briefing papers on Pakistani ISI motives … It’s all out of the newspaper articles cited, written by people who know more than I do. Certainly David Ignatius says he just came from off the record talks with the ISI. And Bill Roggio really watches the theater. So the discussion here is all open source and of a general nature; the kind politicians and talking heads should be having.

I don’t think containment, or management is necessarily bad strategy, but it’s not necessarily a panacea either. The difference between what Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson did is an example of right versus wrong application. One gave you Korea and the other Vietnam. It’s easy now to forget the Iraqi sanctions regime, the Bosnian crisis, etc. were not obviously better, or carried on ad infinitum, necessarily cheaper in terms of human life than going in and doing something. But going in doing something created its own complications. That’s probably what President Obama is afraid of, to give him his due. Giving McChrystal extra men lets him change the game — which the general wants to do — but which carries the risk of introducing new elements. It’s like letting him shuffle the deck and re-deal. What does the President prefer? The devil he knows or the devil he doesn’t?

Sep 30, 2009 - 1:55 pm 51. dan:

This is depressing. I’m at a loss as to why we should honor Pakistan’s apparent belief that Afghanistan is rightfully their sphere of influence. First, they’ve never been able to actually exert hegemony over it (Taliban was brutal, unloved, destabilizing, and ultimately invited invasion and conquest in ~ 5 years). Second, are they really going to declare war on the United States of America if we start aggressively punishing the command and control of the Talibs and Haqqanis inside Pakistan? It seems as though their real option would be to make things difficult for us covertly in Afghanistan… …which is apparently what they’ve been doing already (particularly since Musharraff signed those absurd “peace” hudnas in 2006).

I don’t get what all the confusion about strategy is about. Phase 1: destroy Taliban, establish new government in Kabool via jirga. Phase 2: address Taliban recidivism while generously pumping aid into non-country; support gov’t of Karzai; train national army and police. Phase 3: continue 2 but knit together regional deal with Pakistan; see how this garden grows.

Meanwhile, win in Iraq.

Phase 4: …panic?

What – why don’t we just destroy these networks’ leaders with the same kind of intelligence/predator/socom ops we’ve been using to get people like Baitullah Mehsud? Or do they just grow competent Ak-47-wielding warriors who can fight vs. NATO on trees there?

We don’t need Afghans to become Victorian Englishmen for god’s sake; they can stay farmers and tribal bickerers until the sun explodes for all anyone else cares. The choice can’t be between a sea of irradiated glass and a gigantic jihadi plantation. It makes no sense. They have no economy because they don’t know how to *do anything,* so how could they do – of all things – this? The NVA had the Soviet Union and communist fanaticism. The Taliban just have fanaticism. C’mon. Something is going on here besides ISI sponsorship. Either that or our diplomats suck absolute sh_t.

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:17 pm 52. Non-victory makes perfect sense in the political context of someone whose idea of a solution is a ‘deal’ « CIIDG:

[...] whose idea of a solution is a ‘deal’ 2009 September 30 by Cannoneer No. 4 Read The real thing @ [...]

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:37 pm 53. Armeggedon Rex:

Subotai Bahadur brought up that horribly ugly reality, for Afghanistan, called logistics. If memory serves, last year in comments to a post, Cannoneer spelt out many of the pertinent details of attempting to supply our forces in Afghanistan via air if the ground supply routes are cut off. The short version was that we had the airlift resources to keep them supplied for only a few weeks. This would allow our troops to undertake an evacuation of all forces but not to conduct anything like our current nation building or “normal” combat operations.

In order to continuously supply our forces in Afghanistan entirely by air we would need to cut our footprint to the bone. We would need to forgo nation building completely. We would have to abandon the central government to it’s own devices. We would have to reduce our overall forces on the ground to a few tens of thousands of troops, including support personnel, and pull them all back into two or three remote and extremely well fortified bases with good on-site water supplies. Such locations are extremely rare in Afghanistan.

From these secure bases our elite forces would perform targeted assassination against Jihadists of every stripe, including the Taliban leadership and Al Qaeda. No attempt would be made to hold or control any additional ground. Each secure base would contain a large, formidable ground security force for base defense including medium or heavy artillery, a large modern aerial port, one or two composite squadrons of fighter / attack / ground support aircraft, several helicopter aviation companies, and several composite predator / reaper / other UAV reconnaissance squadrons. Of the 10-15,000 personnel on a base perhaps 500-1000 would actually be special operators who went out to observe, locate and kill the enemy while conducting counter terrorism operations. Another 2500-3500 personnel would be conventional combat forces charged with protecting the base. The rest would be pilots, support people, contractors, etc. This envisions the use of zero local or 3rd country nationals on base. They are all potential security threats. Everyone on base should hold at least a secret level security clearance from his or her respective government. As a bonus, this would provide ample opportunities for skittish allies to supply up to two-thirds of the personnel at each base. The offensive operations could be left to the coalition of the willing: U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, “New-Europe” allies, etc. The support functions would be dominated by everyone else or could be contracted out to thoroughly competent and vetted civilians. This is still a prodigious tooth to tail ratio, two or three support people for every shooter! A great deal of support work would have to be done at a secure logistics base within C-130 range of Khandahar Airport which would continue to serve as an excellent aerial hub. By coincidence, Bombay to Khandahar round trip is under 2000 miles. This means a C-130 could take off from Bombay fully fueled and loaded with supplies and equipment, fly to Khandahar, drop off new / refurbished equipment, and pick up equipment in need of repair, rotating troops, etc. for a flight back to Bombay. Little or no refueling should be necessary at Khandahar! Bombay is a world-class city and major seaport, and they have every reason to help us kill Jihadists everywhere, at any time. The only sticking point I see is maintaining Pakistani permission for over-flight of their airspace.

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:41 pm 54. Annoy Mouse:

Dan, the author advises us to consider Indian paranoia as it pertains to their assessment of the situation. But it seems clear that US intelligence has been walking a fine line between appeasing their hosts in Pakistan and gaining intelligence on the HVT of high value targets, UBL. It pricked my ears because there was discussion earlier about taking closer diplomatic sides with India, something we have been loath to do because of our interests in Pakistan and probably because of hard feelings over India’s refusal to sign the non-proliferation treaty. But as I have hinted before I think NPT is completely dead. Weapons treaties can’t be enforced when two of the worlds greatest weapons producers, Russia and China, refuse to be a party to the deal, at least to the extent that they would help reign in Iran and North Korea. This is why Obama’s apparent bid to unilaterally commit suicide; I mean disarm is so ridiculous. Why don’ we solicit India, China?

If you spend all of your time and energy trying to keep the bus from going over the cliff and no matter what you do, it still teeters on the brink of destruction, something in me says its time to try a new strategy and push the bus over the cliff and say, we will not be fooled by dishonest actors anymore. Needless to say I do not think that this will be the current administrations approach at all. They probably think that we have time on our side because no present or foreseeable outcome will favor the US. Best to wait it out and see if the game changes and if so exploit those opportunities at a later date. I think the administration is more likely to embrace the Rumsfeld concept of low intensity conflict, while bargaining for a shot at UBL. Killing or capturing Bin Laden would make Obama forever.

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:44 pm 55. Bob Smith:

I read that McChrystal prefers an “afghanisation of the war”, that afghani troops would do with the assistance of the US and Nato

This is the sort of thing that proves our military leadership doesn’t get it either. Afghani troops are Muslim. They may hate the Taliban, but they hate infidels just as much. They will assuredly emulate their prophet and turn on us the moment it is convenient to do so. Why waste blood and treasure on them?

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:51 pm 56. Bob Smith:

#53: Armeggedon Rex, your plan is wonderful.

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:53 pm 57. luddy barsen:

w/50; right that due deliberation is on principle a good thing. but the critique from the right is that this careful consideration has already been done –that it is what produced the appointment of the new commander in the first place, and that ordinarily the elevation of the new man would have been the president’s endorsement, and would have carried with it the president’s cooperation with the new general’s approach.

As is, the fight itself has been pushed back behind a new question –why the change in command at all? If the new man isn’t fully trusted and his decisions must be weighed back in the oval office, shouldn’t the time-consuming weighing have been before rather than after selecting the new man –and have been concerned with whether or or not the new man at all?

Sep 30, 2009 - 2:54 pm 58. Annoy Mouse:

In fact, if Osama Bin Laden wanted to really screw the US military, he ought to surrender to Obama. That would pretty well screw all of Obama’s opponents which is pretty much most of the US.

Sep 30, 2009 - 3:01 pm 59. dan:

Annoy – I appreciate your argument, but it seems as though the real difficulty we face is (1) “USA won’t stay forever” (2) “Afghanistan is our Pashtun home” (3) “USA has no stomach for war and so they will pay us to just stay here, no matter what we do to them, and then they will leave PAKISTAN ZANZIBAR AIYIYIYIYIYI!!!,” and then down the list comes (4) “India sucks.”

I guess I look at it this way. Paksitan is a partially Pashtun nation of 175 million people. Afghanistan is a mountain range full of heroin with approximately 25 million noble savages and a gas station. So, if Pakistan wants Afghanistan, seems to me the fastest way to get it would be for USA & Pakistan to encircle and encauldron the Taliban. Easy, peasy, Japanesey. Then, as expected, Yankee goes home. Pak & Afghan brotherhood via their shared Pashtun population. Which could be complete BS but sufficient for politics. Then, ISI has free range, Pak gets major weapons deals; Citibank executives come eat chutney & makhni with the Whoevers. Pak gets more clout vs. India, not least by playing with USA/China leverage vs. India. Meanwhile no one, not even stupid NYTimes journalists, care if Pakistan is whacking Pahstuni trigger happy goat herders. Obviously they were doing it from time out of mind before the klieg lights showed up a la Apocalypse Now; they’ll be doing it when they’re gone.

Instead, I’m to believe Pakistan ISI and Army – i.e. those who rule Pakistan – play this apparently stupid game whereby the Taliban will inherit Afghanistan and rape it like a little boy again. Which will gain what? The epochal political and military humiliation of the USA. Of course if Obama’s in the White House they still may get the upgraded F-16s and whatnot, but…

Pakistan wants to do this why? Because it wants Afghanistan, which it will have one way or another and in any case? When you consider it this way, it would appear Pakistan is our arch-enemy in all the world.

Pakistan.

I submit to you that this cannot be as it seems.

Sep 30, 2009 - 3:12 pm 60. Annoy Mouse:

Dan – I am not sure the best way to put the screws on Pakistan short of doing a Hiroshima on them but I suspect that working with their enemies would be a good start. I don’t even think you could threaten Pakistan with anything. I mean what? Even if you had any leverage on them they would not believe the US will to act so I offer you this; give India a favored nation status. Bomb Iran into the Stone Age, set up your supply chain there. Bomb western Pakistan with total lack of concern of the ISI and if they don’t like it, offer them the “Iran Treatment”.

If we do not have the balz to do this (we don’t,…yet) then legalize Heroin in the US. That would change the game immensely.

Sep 30, 2009 - 3:27 pm 61. Cannoneer No.4:

Rex @ 53:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/02/17/beyond-the-khyber/#comment-69

Quick, click to Fox Business, Robert McFarlane on Cavuto.

Sep 30, 2009 - 3:33 pm 62. RAH:

We have been talking the Afghan strategy since last summer with the Russia invasion of Georgia. At that time and since, I have promoted a different strategy. Afghanistan has no strategic importance to the US, Iraq did. The Iraq war pulled AQ and those that have similar feelings into fighting on a playing field that was better for us. That was a good Bush strategy.

However the Petraeus strategy of getting local (COIN) worked in Iraq but will not work in Afghanistan. It takes too many troops and the locals are much more insular and the infrastructure does not support it. The main cash producer is opium and we have gone on both sides. Destroying the crop and then ignoring it.

Afghanistan is difficult to sustain equipment and supplies. That problem has not been solved. We still have big losses going through the Khyber Pass. The Russian supply route is insufficient to maintain our troops. Equipment is being used up in the harsh environment. We have a shortage of helicopters and British never had enough.

McCrystal 40 K troops will be swallowed up in Afghanistan and will not be enough. Rumsfeld using local warlords with support worked to run the Taliban out and would probably work to set up a feudal system.

Karzai is corrupt and powerless, a very weak reed. We need to go around him and set up better local talent that has the motivation to grab power and fight as we wish.

The US especially under Obama and even under Bush is psychologically unable to sustain a 20-year strategy to convert and modernize Afghanistan into a friend and ally.

We are the most powerful nation but we have limits. With enough manpower, equipment and time our troops can do this. But we do not have those luxuries.

I believe that the desire to emulate the successful strategy in Iraq has lead McCrystal in the classic case of fighting the last war.

Different terrain, populace and culture and infrastructure in Afghanistan. I thought the strategy was wrong then and still think it is wrong. I support our troops but really don’t support the mission. I think they will be wasted.

We need wins and need to reduce the Taliban and their capability to dominate the local population but we need a better strategy. We need to adopt COIN to the new theater and I am not convinced that we have done that. Yon is too close to the action to get a good feel. But his local reports don’t give a good feel.

Our Paki intelligence network has been remarkably good and cheaper to get more bangs for the buck with the drones. That has been working very well the last year. More drones over known Taliban ambush site s would be a good idea. But Afghanistan has an awful lot of good ambush sites. Thankfully most are well known from the Russia occupation.

Increase the number and use of drones inside Afghanistan may be well worth it. We can up our controllers here. Of course this may be a turf war between army, air force and CIA.

I am not a military strategist but these ideas seem simple. I though that the original occupational strategy that Bush had for Iraq was too top down and it turned out I was right.

British tactics with them on the move and supplied by helicopter like they patrol the Iraq/ Iran border were good tactics. The British had limits of transport and troops. That allowed their general to accept the idea of negotiating with the enemy to control towns. Same stupid idea they had in Basra that backfired. We had to take back towns when we went back into Afghanistan.

We have limits but not the same as the British. We can prevent the Taliban from controlling provinces and towns.

So here is the germ of a strategy:
1) Map out the routes the Taliban use to traverse Afghanistan and keep them under observation with massive numbers of drones.

2) Use our air forces, drones and A-10 to destroy the Taliban on the move. Make then scared to move out.

3) Increase our humint in Afghanistan itself to know when Taliban is infiltrating towns so we do targeted clearing operations.

4) Track the Taliban crossing the border and destroy them with ground and air forces.

5) Increase the drone attacks in Pakistan taking out the command and control

6) Find natural military allies among Afghanis and get them to take over warlord duties to hold and destroy Taliban on the roads and paths.

7) Get the NGOS to build better roads and transport networks so the Afghanis can increase trade. Use our road clearing to keep the roads and then delegate that to the warlord/ local chieftain responsible for those roads. Create trade routes and then protect them. That will help build civilization faster than anything else.

Get out of building schools, but use the NGOS for that. The NGOS should help with irrigation and crop subsidies to increase alternative cash revenues for farmers. Schools are a feel good but they create a target for the Taliban. Reduce the targets that we have to protect. If Afghanis really want to educate their girls they can do it in other structures. But don’t do it until the area is secure.

9) Either that or promote home schooling to reduce vulnerable targets.

That is just off the top of my head for a decent start.

Remember Obama will cut and run. That is his character and he will follow his character. Any strategy has to take that into account.

Sep 30, 2009 - 3:55 pm 63. Wadeusaf:

Without reading Cannoneer #4’s links, I think the questions have not been answered, just kicked down the road a bit.

Whose side is the PM of Pakistan on? How does Butto’s widower continue to fight the good fight with the ISI so clingy with the Taliban? If the Pakistani military splits over the effort to deprive the Taliban of nukes is that any different from denying the Taliban sanctuary to allow the like of Al Queda to conduct business. The PM and president Obama must decide what not only what they want to do but how they can do it.

War with Pakistan or a Pakistani civil war. The point of no return is soon upon Islamabad.

Sep 30, 2009 - 4:31 pm 64. SpeakEasy:

So what if we let the Taliban “win.” Once they are calling the shots, they become the defacto government, just like the Nazis were in WWII. Wouldn’t it be easier to take off the safeties and rain carnage down upon their beady little heads? What, like there were not German citizens that were not actual nazis but died just the same in the factories? Either fight it to win and stop crying crocodile tears over those who would just as soon cut off your head or just leave the area and start drilling in Alaska (and elsewhere) while making all Muslims personna non grata.

Sep 30, 2009 - 4:37 pm 65. RAH:

The ISI has different agendas from the beginning. They have used Taliban to keep Afghanistan a buffer state before 9/11. That backfired since AQ started to get the idea and resources to deliver an attack on US homeland with minute resources.

ISI still actively supports Lashkar e- Taiba to undercut India and as weapon against India. They support the Red mosque fundamentalists that Musharaff took down and lost his power base and had to allow elections. ISI was probably behind the assassination attempts on Musharaff. ISI still supports the Taliban but they got scared when Baitullah Mehsud was getting too close to the capital and an actual threat to Pakistan and ISI.

The Taliban threat against Pakistan has been diminished so there will a lot less cooperation.
Roggio had a lot of good articles on the duplicity of the Pakistan troops at the border last year and the year before. Obama was right when he said the real problem is Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally but a treacherous one.

We cannot take out the ISI inside Pakistan. They have many different factions and we do not have good humint intelligence. Plus our ridiculous reluctance to overturn domestic situations in allies limits us. I do not expect any CIA operatives to even think about this with Obama and friends targeting CIA operatives

About the timidity of our military, with Obama it maybe better to be quiet and just do any action on their own with what they have. The old easier to have forgiveness than permission. This is helped with Obama’s reluctance to meet with the military. Most the JOC and DOD is keeping their heads down. Any good military idea that may progress American programs like the missile defense is likely to get shut down. The F 22 is an example. That F-22 was designed to be politically protected with parts built in many states and protected by Congressional turfs. It was gone in 30 seconds and only rear guard actions are protecting them now.

Gate’s misdirection on the Czech radar depends on non-existent upgrades to the Arliegh Burke Missile boats. My guess is Gates is trying to accommodate Obama and keep the military in the best shape he can. Any successor is likely to be worse with Obama. Gates is also less aggressive toward Russia and other threats. My guess is he has the Cold warrior attitude to keep tensions from going hot.

We need redundancy in missile defense. Not reduction. I expect Darpa will keep their really neat project s running on shoestrings to wait out Obama’s possible shutting them down. The military best hope is to hide in the bureaucracy any good programs and leaders.

I am sure that our fields commanders do know better to count on continue Paki help in the border area. There was a small window while Pakis were scared of the Taliban. That window is closing or has closed.

Afghanistan has a rushed quality that McCrystal is pushing. They know the opportunity to win or even get decisive defeats is limited. Obama does not have the fortitude or interest to want to win. His public pronouncements and disinterest to even meet with his generals have been shown.

A realistic approach has to take in account the character and agendas of the President. Obama has a huge ego that will not tolerate military dissent. I do not want the US to get attacked or lose more prestige that what will happen with Obama. Obama is hopefully a one term President. The successors are worse with Biden and Pelosi so we really do not want anything bad to happen to Obama. He was voted in and unless he does a flagrant felonious act I do not expect any successful impeachment. Impeachment is not for policy differences. That was an issue the left cannot understand. We can adopt tactics of the left, but we cannot destroy the American values for political success.

Sep 30, 2009 - 4:47 pm 66. RAH:

# 64 We do not have the political will to pour down fire bombs on Afghanis to get Taliban in towns. Once Taliban is in the capital then we have lost. That hurts us for decades as every Tom, Dick and Harry trys to get glory scoring off the US like AQ did on 9/11

Sep 30, 2009 - 4:51 pm 67. RAH:

My accesment is that Obama would like to win in Afghanistan, if only to prop up his ego. But he is scared of a quagmire with a surge. I actually think he may be correct.

We only have a year at most before we have to wind it down to a Bosnia type operation.

Sep 30, 2009 - 4:54 pm 68. Dave:

Bert summarized it best a few days ago. Re-invent Pershing’s “trading post” strategy.

BTW Black Jack did not really invent it, guys like Jim Bridger did.

After using full battalions (hence the surge factor) to thoroughly clear the problem areas
you hold said areas with platoons who wheel and deal in whatever projects look like they may turn a buck or three and hire amenable locals to do the manual labor for you. Imperialism with a capital I.

Pulling it off requires (a) planning for and manning a 30-year operation, (b) practicing some benign neglect towards Afghan cities while securing the countryside, (c) keeping appropriate levels of fire support immediately available to teeny-weeny patrols,
(d) coupling (c) with state-of-the-art survellance available to local command/trading posts and (e) securing that logistical route through Pakistan.

That is over there. Requirements for over here start with convincing the general public that we have a genuine plan. It will not be popular, especially that 30-year part, but it will be acceptable.

Obama? Whatever and whoever makes him squirm
will have him cooperating with them. A little PSYOP questioning his alleged brillance will grab his attention. Then go from there.

BTW: Anybody seen Old Blue lately, Do wish he would weigh in.

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:00 pm 69. MarkJ:

Lifeofthemind,

“My guess is that the generals are turning turtle. They can either resign dramatically (few will) or try to protect their own little world until the storm passes. What is extremely unlikely is any coordination that leads to a Seven Days in May conspiracy. That simply isn’t in the culture in the US military.”

The above explains why you’ll be so shocked and surprised when there is a coup. You’ll have never seen it coming.

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:04 pm 70. Dave:

Okay Cannoneer: It is time for you and some other artillery types to take a hand. You need to present our Narcisstic-in-Chief with a caisson full of artillery punch in appreciation
of his inspired foward observing.

Spike said punch with prune juice and a touch of epsom salts. Then stand back whilst he actually utilizes the throne.

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:06 pm 71. RAH:

Wretchard hypothesis that Obama reluctance to approve the strategy would be to highlight the differences we have with Pakistan is not supported by the evidence.

1) Obama has not shown any brilliance in foreign policy and little interest.
2) Obama’s ego blinds him to worry that he will be shown in bad light to have any difference shown.
3) So Obama is probably not aware and if he was he would not consider it a political danger.
4) Obama has demonstrated a consistent blindness to know when he is treading on political dangerous ground. His inability to stop apologizing about American is angering Americans but he continues anyway. He is even getting flack from liberal writers now.
5) The restatement of missile defense on the 70th anniversary of the Poland’s invasion showed a distinct lack of thinking and knowledge about historical traps.
6) Obama’s amateur diplomatic gaffes on Prime Minister Brown and the Queen of England show a distinct failure of knowledge of protocol and massive ego.

Based on these and many other missteps I just do not think Obama is smart enough to worry like Wretchard has proposed.

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:09 pm 72. George Bruce:

Sounds like some folks are still looking for moderate head choppers.

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:30 pm 73. dan:

where’s habu been? he have a meltdown at some point?

also, anyone have a good pak-china relations resource aside from wikipedia?

Sep 30, 2009 - 5:58 pm 74. bits:

2. ADE:
” Can anybody on this blog explain to me why a 100, 1000, OK 10,000 towelheads have got the combined US/Nato forces’ knickers in such a twist. ”

that is simple enough, as is the answer –
they, are dedicated, to their death, to their cause.
this is not complicated – it is extraordinarily simple.
that may be why we fail to understand.

they, are not, ‘towelheads’

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:12 pm 75. Cannoneer No. 4:

Fahr Na Ho, Dave, fire in the hole.

Old Blue is back in country and blogs at Afgan Quest now:

I think in terms of success or failure. The previous Afghan government, if you could call it that, was not so much governing as ruling over a failed state. So let’s talk about what success looks like in Afghanistan. We can describe it simply, but then you have to drill down to what that actually means. For starters, success in Afghanistan includes a stable government devoid of dysfunctional or disabling corruption. What does that mean? Look at our own level of corruption in the United States… don’t act like we don’t have corruption… but it’s generally not disabling. Disabling means that whatever corruption is present interferes materially and consistently with the provision of basic governmental responsibilities; what we often call basic services. It means an Afghanistan with a rising economy, dropping unemployment, a growing standard of living, climbing literacy rates and ever higher standards of education. It means an Afghanistan where there is a basic rule of law and where the citizens feel relatively safe in their homes and neighborhoods and where nearly all feel that there is some access to justice. This means that one of the basic services is security; the ability of the populace to live without threat or intimidation.

Can we do that? I think that perhaps we can.

Sep 30, 2009 - 6:27 pm 76. Tcobb:

Can anybody on this blog explain to me why a 100, 1000, OK 10,000 towelheads have got the combined US/Nato forces’ knickers in such a twist. ”
When the cat has a sock over its fangs and its claws and its legs are bound, the rats can prevail. The real question is: if we don’t want the rats to win why did we bind the cat?

To use Occam’s razor, an invaluable tool, we must assume that the people who bound the cat were on the rat’s side to begin with.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:00 pm 77. Annoy Mouse:

“what we often call basic services. It means an Afghanistan with a rising economy, dropping unemployment, a growing standard of living, climbing literacy rates and ever higher standards of education. It means an Afghanistan where there is a basic rule of law and where the citizens feel relatively safe in their homes and neighborhoods and where nearly all feel that there is some access to justice. This means that one of the basic services is security; the ability of the populace to live without threat or intimidation.”

Boy, this kinda struck a nerve. Let’s try rewriting this;

It means an AMERICA with a rising economy, dropping unemployment, a growing standard of living, climbing literacy rates and ever higher standards of education.

How we doin’ on this? Not too well if you ask me.

It means an AMERICA where there is a basic rule of law and where the citizens feel relatively safe in their homes and neighborhoods and where nearly all feel that there is some access to justice.

Try feeling safe where gangs of illegal aliens roam.

We are broke and going down the toilet and our government is corrupt to the gills. We have no business going to another country unless it is to make us money, make us peace, or punish those who mess with us. It seems to me that our objective is in Afghanistan is to kill people and break things. Now that we have chosen to prop up a halfast government there, they don’t want us to bomb their goat herders so maybe it is time to take our ball and go home. Cleaning out the bowels of hell has no end-game.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:10 pm 78. Bob Smith:

For starters, success in Afghanistan includes a stable government devoid of dysfunctional or disabling corruption. It means an Afghanistan with a rising economy, dropping unemployment, a growing standard of living, climbing literacy rates and ever higher standards of education. It means an Afghanistan where there is a basic rule of law and where the citizens feel relatively safe in their homes and neighborhoods and where nearly all feel that there is some access to justice.

You hope to accomplish all that while Islam rules Afghanistan? Good luck with that.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:23 pm 79. Cannoneer No. 4:

It Is Time to Lead, Follow Or Get the Hell Out of the War

There are only two outcomes to a war, WIN or LOSE, VICTORY or DEFEAT. So now it is time to decide. This is a tough decision for the President, that I understand. But it is also a fairly simple one. Do you want the all the lives lost and ruined after eight years of war to be in vain? Do you want to give the enemy a huge I/O victory by allowing them to say they beat us like the Russians? Do you want to give up all we have gained and provided the people of Afghanistan? Turn your back on them now and you might as well be signing the death warrant of not only thousands of Afghans, but more than likely hundreds if not thousands of Europeans or Americans at some point in the future.

Sep 30, 2009 - 7:43 pm 80. Annoy Mouse:

Sure Canoneer but exactly how do we define victory in this case. Unless I am mistaken our goals were to prosecute Al Queda and to deny them training camps in Afghanistan. To some extent we succeeded in this in both theaters of war. If we had killed Osama Bin Laden it would be fair to say that we did what we set out to do but this war metastasized into something we are unable to effectively counter, a war within another sovereign country’s border. We didn’t set out to invade Pakistan but that is what we are facing. So we are no longer flushing a running enemy out of its cover in a vast wilderness but in the difficult situation of having to ally with or go to war against a nuclear-armed state of a hundred million or more. It stinks but the problem is intractable to those not willing to cleave the Gordian knot. To solve this problem would take more commitment than we had going into Iraq and if our leaders were up to it, which I think they clearly are not, then I am pretty sure the American people are not up to it. Not when they feel we have lost the initiative to survive an ever growing, insatiably power hungry, freedom diminishing, money-grubbing nanny state. Foreign adventures are a luxury. We are losing the battle for the United States and badly.

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:00 pm 81. Subotai Bahadur:

#79 Cannoneer No. 4

Do you want the all the lives lost and ruined after eight years of war to be in vain? Do you want to give the enemy a huge I/O victory by allowing them to say they beat us like the Russians? Do you want to give up all we have gained and provided the people of Afghanistan? Turn your back on them now and you might as well be signing the death warrant of not only thousands of Afghans, but more than likely hundreds if not thousands of Europeans or Americans at some point in the future.

When phrased like that, is there any doubt which Obama would choose if he can get away with it?

Subotai Bahadur

Sep 30, 2009 - 8:09 pm 82. RagnarD:

A Rex says:

Many have commented here at the Belmont Club and elsewhere asking something similar to: “If Obama were intentionally trying to wreck the U.S., without being immediately impeached, how would his actions be any different than everything we’ve seen thus far?”

At first I wrote these folks off as excessively partisan, but as time passes, and mind-blowing idiocies pile up, I’m thinking more and more that they make an excellent point.

What? You thought we were just stupid wingnuts? Some of us do/have done this for real, maybe. Where the frak is Habu?

Geoffrey Britain says:

The second nuclear terrorist attack upon American soil will result in isolationism, fortress america and near-permanent martial law. It’s the only possible response when you can’t strike back at an enemy without a fixed location.

Would you also consider wretchard’s conjecture? That then 1e9 in the casualty column for Islam is written? That is where I think it will end. Maybe not even the US writing that number but some other power doing so.

Russia and China are conducting a covert war of attribution against the US and, it’s working. They’re using Islamic fanaticism to attack the West and both will continue to block any unified efforts at concerted actions against rogue nations in the UN.

True. They also make it well known that ANY action by the same blockheads on their soil will HURT and HURT BADLY. They use our own open society against us is the problem. If and until DC grows a set and decides that the threat is really existential then we are going to have the same conversations over and over again. We continually, and those on this site are as guilty of this as anyone, forget that we must ALWAYS consider these issues in the weltanschauung of the people who want to kill us or we will go through the same self abusive (and I am being nice) contortions. We must consider this through their eyes and almost all of those in the US have not spent enough time anywhere else to even offer a semi-formed opinion (sad to say, but it is true).

Obama is trying to game the outcome so that he can vote ‘present’, blame the failure on someone else or make the win one that balances all the opposing internal political sides, which is impossible. So what we will see is he does nothing soon and probably waits for something else to distract from this issue so he can sneak some half formed, half a$$ed policy through on a late Friday afternoon. IOW, kick this particular can down the road, again.

Sep 30, 2009 - 10:13 pm 83. PatriotUSA:

#78 Bob Smith:
You hope to accomplish all that while Islam rules Afghanistan? Good luck with that.

Indeed! There is the bigger picture of Islam and Islamofacism. Obama is one who likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth, making deals, begging for Islam and Muslim forgiveness of what we have done to them,(See Obama cairo speech, 6/4/2009) apologizing to the world, appeasement at all costs and operating from a position of weakness. There is worry about Afghanistan becoming another Vietnam. Only if we LET that happen. Vietnam was a war that we could won, and we should have. That is an argument for another day. This about Islam and the war it has waged against the entire world since the 7th century. Islam will not waging Jihad against us no matter what we do or give them. How many examples and dead Americans, citizens of the free world do we need before we get the message? Was not 3,000 Americans murdered by Islam on 9/11 enough to take it on back to them? We need to finish this job and finish strongly. The fight against Islam and all that it brings with it will not be won in a short time. Nor is it an ideology that one makes ‘peace’deals with.

Europe and Britain are reeling from the onslaught of Muslim immigration and what has
come in with it. The same thing is happening here and it will quickly get out of hand. Our own gov’t downplays the last week and the three attempts at terrorist attacks inside this country. They try to tell us they are not connected and these terrorist wanna be’s are jsut that,isolated nut cases. Yeah, right. Do we want to fight Islam overseas or here inside our won borders? Sorry to say it is both. The time for talking is over. The time for appeasing Islam needs to be over. It is time to bring out the big stick and do all and whatever we need to keep Islam down and defeat it.

Sep 30, 2009 - 11:49 pm 84. gokart-mozart:

The commentary here is terrific, but most of it contains a central conceptual error, which is to presume the existence of Pakistan.

Pakistan was a very bad idea in 1947, and it hasn’t improved with age. US foreign policy, if we still have one, is not powerful enough to vivify a cadaver.

Tactics are fine, but our strategy should be to dismember Pakistan and to reduce its remnants to harmlessness, in collaboration of course with our friends in New Delhi. Sind and the Punjab are Indian, if they are anything. The Baloch want their own state. The tribes in the FATA and NWFP have caused the world enough trouble, and need to be brought to heel or eliminated.

The central error was made in November-December 2001, and what we see now is merely the outworking of the defeat Pakistan inflicted on us eight years ago. We can either destroy Pakistan now, or after the next successful terrorist attack.

All our stuff is over there, so I vote for now.

Oct 1, 2009 - 4:12 am 85. Wadeusaf:

The one bit of frustration I have still not figured out how to overcome is the lack of information about Afghan capabilities. Its probably a good thing, I cannot, but it may also be time to know how well the training and preparation of the Afghan Army and Police is proceeding. I found that Old Blue had and appears still has a perspective on the war conducted in Afghanistan that is undeniable. I believe Afghanistan can be won, I am not convinced that Pakistan can. Geographically that puts my thinking in a pickle. I cannot even begin to imagine what president Obama must be contemplating, given the same conundrum with much better intel.

I am nearly sure I will disagree, but as in other things it may be he takes the path of the pragmatic. In which case he may yet decide we have some work to do yet in that neck of the woods. Indications are there that he will not leave, especially with Iran now in full view.

Oct 1, 2009 - 5:28 am 86. Chief:

Cannoneer #4 @31 knows of what he speaks.

Light, agile HK groups with called-in heavy firepower is the key. Kill bad guys in Afgan. That’s all. No nation building; no hearts and minds. Not love, but fear must be inspired.

Mexican mothers still frighten their young ones with reference to the Texas Rangers.

How long? As long as we wish. Forever? Nothing is forever, but for a long, long time. As for finding troops, when I enlisted in the USMC in 1951 it was to fight . . . whomever, wherever. Surely such young men still exist. I would estimate that about 2.5-3% of the population would go just for the action.

All you folks would have to is provide funding.

Oct 1, 2009 - 5:31 am 87. Thursday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath:

[...] Pakistan and Afghanistan. [...]

Oct 1, 2009 - 6:09 am 88. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e87v4:

[...] Pakistan and Afghanistan. [...]

Oct 1, 2009 - 6:10 am 89. Unsk:

For those who ascribe some sort of positive concern, thought, strategy or planning to our Dear Leader Buraq for our effort in Afghanistan, please consider the facts:

• He clearly lied about his plans for Afghanistan during the campaign.

• Since he was elected, he has not only refused to put forward a clear strategy for success in Afghanistan, much less victory, he has kissed the but of virtually every tinhorn Muslim Dictator and Enemy in the world.

• Before, yesterday, he hadn’t talk to his Afghan Commander McCrystal in months.

• He hasn’t even bothered to read McCrystal’s report even though he has had it over a month, and it does not apparently bother him one bit that our boys are dying in Afghanistan due to his neglect. All the while, he still has time in his “busy” schedule of partying with rappers and black celebrities to go to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago’s hosting of the Olympics, and btw, party some more.

Whatever Buraq’s motivations, it is quite clear he has absolutely no concern for the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan, and could care less for America’s interest’s in the region. He is a callous psychopath. Period. The only reason he makes any effort at all regarding Afghanistan is to provide some sort of public relations fig leaf to spin his lies from.

Oct 1, 2009 - 8:32 am 90. exhelodrvr:

I’m sure others have suggested this, but why don’t we just buy the poppy crops from the farmers?

Oct 1, 2009 - 9:55 am 91. luddy barsen:

exhel/90; –and bid against the Genoveses? why, we’d have to vote out a few very powerful politicians first.

Oct 1, 2009 - 11:30 am 92. sirius_sir:

Tactics are fine, but our strategy should be to dismember Pakistan and to reduce its remnants to harmlessness, in collaboration of course with our friends in New Delhi. Sind and the Punjab are Indian, if they are anything. The Baloch want their own state. The tribes in the FATA and NWFP have caused the world enough trouble, and need to be brought to heel or eliminated. gokart-mozart @ 84

We should at least consider the possibility. I’d like to know what the Powell Doctrine wrt Pakistan would have been had Musharraf not played ball after 9/11.

At the very least we should be consulting/cooperating with the Indians. Indubitably, they have some idea of what is desirable and doable. I suspect the first move is to secure or disable the nukes, but I’m not sure that’s even possible.

Oct 1, 2009 - 1:58 pm 93. Armeggedon Rex:

#90 exhelodrvr:

Because the farmers are only growing poppy due to the threats, both implied and direct, from your friendly neighborhood Taliban posse with the AK-47s and RPGs.

If the local Taliban warlord were to be outbid by Uncle Sugar, and local farmers sold their entire crop to the U.S., then Mullah Hackaheada or whoever is in charge this month, until the next successful REAPER strike, is out of business until they can beg, borrow, or steal money or materials to continue operations. Zakat only goes so far in Pashtun circles, and usually doesn’t include funding full-blown terrorist insurgencies in a Afghani province.

How much do you want to bet that any farmer who sold his crop to Uncle Sugar would receive a one time only educational visit from the regional Taliban warlords thugs, covering the repercussions for not selling his poppy crop to the proper buyer?

The farmers in most areas are virtual slaves to whichever armed band is able to operate effectively in their area. Throughout much of Afghanistan, those groups are the Taliban or an associated group.

Oct 1, 2009 - 5:48 pm 94. RAH:

The Taliban use the proceeds from the poppy crop and would indeed kill any farmer that sold to another. But the farmers also want to sell the opium crop. all the interests coincide. A decent cash crop for the farmers and a revenue provider for Taliban.

Afghanistan as a weak buffer state is in the interest of the ISI, so Wrethchard’s contention that the ISI do not want the McChrystal plan to go into effect is correct.

Our military is under civilian control and so Obama’s goals are what counts. I really do not think he is concerned about a public disclosure unless it embarrasses him.

Oct 2, 2009 - 4:34 am

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