Nine paradoxes of counterinsurgency

[Winehole23]

Bump. Cause it is relevant again.

It better be. The current surge in Afghanistan is a temporizing move at best.

If leads to some temporary advantage that brings the Taliban to the bargaining table or otherwise takes the heat off Kabul for a spell, great. To expect much more from it would be a mistake IMO.

As you've pointed out elsewhere RG, winning the counterinsurgency would require a massive, sustained investment in Afghanistan's infrastructure and civil society. Something on the order of the Marshall Plan -- maybe even bigger -- and probably spanning decades, not years.

Unfortunately, our allies seem to be moving away at the moment we need them to be moving in, and the context of security that makes rebuilding the country not only doable but feasible, has not yet been acheived -- and appears to be worsening.

Also, the general financial swoon could not be worse timed WRT our strategic aims. The political will behind them could easily fail. Why should we undertake an epochal rescue of Afghanistan when our own bacon is in the fry basket?

OTOH, much more temporizing and we'll be talking about a "responsible withdrawal" like Iraq.



Which is to say, another strategic debacle.

[RandomGuy]

It better be. The current surge in Afghanistan is a temporizing move at best.

If leads to some temporary advantage that brings the Taliban to the bargaining table or otherwise takes the heat off Kabul for a spell, great. To expect much more from it would be a mistake IMO.

As you've pointed out elsewhere RG, winning the counterinsurgency would require a massive, sustained investment in Afghanistan's infrastructure and civil society. Something on the order of the Marshall Plan -- maybe even bigger -- and probably spanning decades, not years.

Unfortunately, our allies seem to be moving away at the moment we need them to be moving in, and the context of security that makes rebuilding the country not only doable but feasible, has not yet been acheived -- and appears to be worsening.

Also, the general financial swoon could not be worse timed WRT our strategic aims. The political will behind them could easily fail. Why should we undertake an epochal rescue of Afghanistan when our own bacon is in the fry basket?

OTOH, much more temporizing and we'll be talking about a "responsible withdrawal" like Iraq.

Which is to say, another strategic debacle.

For one thing, our security is linked to that of the unstable Gap. (reference PM Barnett's book/website)

Building up Afghanistan will be fairly doable, especially with a draw down in Iraq.

[Winehole23]

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...Name=worldNews
Pentagon sees limit on U.S. troops in Afghanistan

Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:05pm EST

]



Video









WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday he would be very skeptical about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond those already requested by the top commander there.


U.S. Army General David McKiernan, the commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, has asked for a range of units that could amount to 30,000 more U.S. troops. One of the brigades he requested has already started to deploy.


"I would be very skeptical of any additional American force levels beyond what General McKiernan has already asked for," Gates told a hearing of the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee.


There are 36,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, split between the 55,000-strong NATO force and separate U.S. missions.


"The Afghan people must believe this is their war and we are there to help them because if they think we are there for our own purposes then we will go the way of every other foreign army that has been in Afghanistan," Gates said.

[RandomGuy]

The commander is mistaken if he truly thinks he does not need more troops.

Troop levels are polical footballs, and no commander is going to really stick his neck out too far and publicly about not having enough troops.

That isn't to say that troops alone are the answer though.

What extra troops gives you is the ability to hold onto gains you have made and build up in relative security, which is something Afghanistan desperately needs.

Afghanistan is not, however, Iraq.

There is a real lack of capable administrators in a country that has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world, and no modern history of stable government of any kind.

Afghanistan will be one for the real long haul. We can pass Iraq off to the Iraqis and are doing so, but our commitment to Afghanistan is one in which I see us there for another decade at least, barring something game-changing.

[RandomGuy]

bumpovatch

[Winehole23]

Kissinger on The War in Afghanistan.

[RandomGuy]

Kissinger on The War in Afghanistan.

"President Obama said Tuesday night that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world." Whatever strategy his team selects needs to be pursued with determination. It is not possible to hedge against failure by half-hearted execution."

Yup.

I think Obama has demonstrated an understanding of this, based on his statements.

It's only a month in, so I will reserve judgement as to the effacacy of the administration's efforts for when I actually have an idea as to what those efforts entail.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I can.

Not that I can defend our invasion of Iraq; but there is almost no doubt in my mind that if it wasn't there, there would be someplace else as the "center for terror recrutiment". Wherever that was, we would be, and we would be in a hot, shooting, body bag filling, war.

They hate us, there are alot of them, we are going to fight them for the foreseeable future. I don't understand why people believed that this would be a short excercise after 9/11.

We certainly could have played our cards better, and not have earned the distrust of so much of the world. But radical Muslims fighting, blowing themselves and our soldiers up? That was GOING to happen - and is happening.

They don't like us. They don't like our laws. They don't like our religions. They think killing us gets them into paradise. This problem is going to be with us through this, and at least the next, presidency; no matter who wins.

ISIS.

You win man. Over a decade ago.

The article in the OP still stands the test of time as well.

[RandomGuy]

I don't want Bush to go down in flames, quite the opposite. I wish his presidency was a spectacular success.

The problem is that his policies have failed spectacularly and his going down in flames is taking the rest of us with him.

The whole problem we have in the United States is that, like many on this board, many people support Bush even as he steers us into an iceburg. Even if it means we all go down with the ship and these people consider the people who are saying "look out for that giant iceburg" to be the problem, rather than the fact that the captain is dead set on not changing course.

Dang.

Cut to 2019, and Republicans still saying that people pointing out the problem are the problem.