Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[MarkOttawa]

Gen. Petraeus in action (with video and transcript):

The key to Obama's Afghan second surge: In faster, maybe...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/key-to-obamas-second-surge-in-faster.html

...out sooner (see Uppestdate here). Or pushing to curve to the left. From a major NY Times story on the president's decision-making process...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

Further confirmation of the "we're still working out next steps" message thread, this time from Michèle Flournoy, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy via this Reuters story (with a hat tip to Bruce at Flit for first spotting the tidbit elsewhere) - emphasis mine:

.... The new deployments will be partly offset by planned withdrawals by allies, with the Netherlands and Canada planning to pull out their combat forces of 2,100 and 2,800 troops in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

Flournoy said discussions were underway about the future roles of Canada and the Netherlands in the country. She did not rule out a future military role but appeared to suggest other options were also under discussion.

"We are still in dialogue with them about the nature of their contributions going forward. And we very much hope that they will continue to stay with us and find a way to continue to contribute to the mission," she said.

Asked whether this could involve some military role, she said: "I think all options are still on the table and discussion."

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile, Torch post with lots of further links:

Afstan: First units of US second surge announced, mostly Marines
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-first-units-of-us-second-surge.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post from Terry Glavin, now at KAF:

Clear, Hold, Build: The End Of The Beginning In Afghanistan.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/clear-hold-build-end-of-beginning-in.html

And a response at The Torch:

TG reporting from the Sandbox--plus "a weird strip-tease" and more types of dancing
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/tg-reporting-from-sandbox-plus-weird.html

Plus BruceR. at Flit for context:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Video with BruceR.:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24374?in=00:00&out=60:41

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Jerry Pournelle:

http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view599.html#Saturday

The Truth about Afghanistan, and its meaning for US policy

The obvious truth about Afghanistan is that there are two conditions for an American victory, assuming victory means building a democratic republic in the territory we call Afghanistan. One has to do with the number of troops. The other is the length of the commitment: how long will we stay?

Obama's policy meets neither condition. It will not establish a democratic republic, and it is unlikely to bring about any real consolidation of power centered in Kabul. Afghanistan is not a nation, and sending in 80% of the troops needed for a period of eighteen months is not going to turn it into one. The King of Afghanistan was always no more than the Grand Duke of Kabul, a Khan of Khans but not Great Khan; the local Khans were not his subordinates and did not attend at his court. That has not changed. The President of Afghanistan is the Mayor of Kabul, and he has even less authority over the village and territorial Khans than the King ever did. You may prefer to call the local Khans "tribal leaders" or "Warlords"; the nomenclature isn't important.

The Russians drove much of the local infrastructure into the hills, and the Taliban -- many of them mujahadeen armed and subsidized by US and Pakistani intelligence agents -- were poised to take over when the Russians gave up the effort to establish a soviet republic government centered in Kabul in the territory called Afghanistan. Note that whatever criticisms one might have of the Soviet strategy, squeamishness was not one of them. They were ruthless in meeting terror with counter-terror, going so far as to leave booby trapped teddy bears and other toys where children could find them; there were other tactics consistent with that. If ruthless counter-terrorism would serve, the Soviets would not have abandoned Afghanistan.

The Russians drove the Khans into the hills, and the Taliban took advantage of that. They came as liberators, and they imposed a central government on Afghanistan, the first in well over a century. Their control appeared absolute, but proved to be fragile: with the help of some US Special Forces the Northern Alliance -- Warlords and Khans -- returned to control of the cities, towns, and villages. The Taliban leaders retreated to the hills, and to Pakistan, and another round in the perpetual conflict in Afghanistan began. Today the Taliban has made it dangerous to be seen as a friend of the West. They have also shown that they have long memories.

Counterinsurgency strategy relies on this proposition: friends of the West prosper without having to submit and kowtow. Become a friend of the west and you will have schools and fresh water, and we will help you keep your markets safe. The Taliban strategy is simply to remind the local Khans that the Taliban do not forget. The friends of our enemies are enemies, and our memories are long.

How long? We don't know, but at least a generation. Fifteen years? Certainly no fewer than ten. And absolutely longer than five years, much less eighteen months.

Obama's strategy cannot succeed in building a new order in Afghanistan. However desirable it may be to have a democratic republic in Afghanistan, this strategy cannot achieve it. In order to achieve that goal we must commit more troops now -- and more importantly, commit to stay as long as necessary.

It has always been clear that we never intended to make such a commitment. One need only look at Viet Nam. In Viet Nam the local pacification had already been achieved. The Vietnamization of the war was a success. The only threat to South Viet Nam after 1970 was massive invasion from the north -- and that couldn't succeed so long as the United States was willing to support the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam with materiel and air support. That was proved in 1972 when 150,000 North Vietnamese regulars, twelve (12) Divisions, rolled south with as much armor as Guderian had in the conquest of France. The US provided support, but the war was won by ARVN. US casualties for 1972 were 640, with an additional 168 in 1973. Despite this, the Congress of the United States ended our commitment to Viet Nam, and the next invasion from the North, in 1975, was successful: Congress voted no air support, and materiel support of 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per ARVN soldier. The invading army was fully supplied.

Note that the threat to Viet Nam wasn't "insurgency", and the US didn't need to leave much in the way of troops; what troops we had left on the ground were in enclaves (a strategy first proposed by Gen. James Gavin) in 1965. Viet Nam did not fall to insurgents or guerrillas. It fell to an armored army invading from the north. But mostly it fell to a withdrawal of support by the United States, even though that support did not require massive troop deployment or counter insurgency tactics. That commitment did not require much exposure of US troops to danger from infiltrators, and the 1972 war showed that US casualties would be small even in the event of an all-out invasion. If the US wouldn't meet that commitment, then it was extremely unlikely that the US would commit to keep the Legions in Afghanistan, where conditions were worse and we had far less at stake.

Note also that we have no real national interest in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq there is no oil, there is no warm water port upon the sea, there is nothing made or grown there that we need, there are no trade routes vital to western commerce. The only strategic importance of the area is its ability to harbor our enemies.

A Different Objective?

If the American objective is changed from "establish a democratic republic friendly to the west" to "make sure no US enemies are harbored in Afghanistan," will the new Obama strategy accomplish that?

It seems unlikely, but that needs more analysis. We'll get to that another day. But last night Obama announced, clearly, that the West will not stay in Afghanistan; Afghanistan will not be restructured; the President of Afghanistan will remain the Mayor of Kabul; and the Taliban need only wait. And the local Khans will understand that the Taliban forgets nothing.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Thucydides: Worth seriously worrying about, I fear.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[leroi]

A post from Terry Glavin, now at KAF:

Clear, Hold, Build: The End Of The Beginning In Afghanistan.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/clear-hold-build-end-of-beginning-in.html

And a response at The Torch:

TG reporting from the Sandbox--plus "a weird strip-tease" and more types of dancing
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/tg-reporting-from-sandbox-plus-weird.html

Plus BruceR. at Flit for context:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/

Mark
Ottawa

Mark, this below by Glavin that you also express:

But our "combat role," whatever that might mean, is supposed to come to an end by 2011, and it's still unclear just what Canada's military and civilian contribution in Kandahar is going to be after that. This is inexcusable. What Canada does next in Afghanistan should be the subject of an open, vigorous debate among Canadian parliamentarians, and especially among ordinary Canadians. Nothing of the kind is happening. Nobody knows what's going on.

~It's "inexcusable" and heartbreaking and must be so frustrating for our CF members risking life and limb and not knowing what the future holds.
And then there are those children in Afghanistan whose hopes of a better life through education have been raised--only to be dashed?

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Netherlands and Afstan--the Dutch debate here
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/press-review-7-december-2009
--a lot more open, and no more confusing, than our government's dithering dance:

...

US wants continued Dutch presence in Afghanistan
De Volkskrant reports that the US ambassador to NATO is putting pressure on the Dutch government to stay in Uruzgan province at least until July 2011. On the current affairs programme Buitenhof Ambassador Ivo Daalders said that if the Netherlands wanted to be among the first countries to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, “We could talk about that”, but until that time, “the Netherlands must finish its job in Uruzgan province”.

According to de Volkskrant, the cabinet will decide early next year at the latest what military contribution the Netherlands can make to international efforts in Afghanistan. However, Prime Minister wants to withdraw all soldiers from Uruzgan in 2010 as pledged when the mission was agreed in 2007. Any extension of the military mission would have to be outside Uruzgan province to avoid accusations that the cabinet is not keeping its promises.

Mr Daalders expressed surprise at Development Minister Bert Koenders’ remarks, who said that development work in Uruzgan province would continue even after the Dutch soldiers had left. The US ambassador to NATO said: “You cannot carry out development projects in southern Afghanistan without defending them. And others will not be able to guard the Dutch”.

Trouw reports that the issue of the Dutch mission to Afghanistan has led to growing controversy in the Dutch cabinet. The Labour Party and the Christian Union want to get out of Uruzgan, but the Christian Democratic CDA, both in the cabinet and in parliament, are in favour of a new, albeit smaller, mission to Uruzgan province. On Friday, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said the Netherlands would become the odd man out in NATO if it no longer had soldiers in Afghanistan after August next year. He said other NATO member states keep sending soldiers, and he wants a quick decision in the cabinet...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some smoke and mirrors in ISAF surge:

Many surge troops 'already in Afghanistan'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6948269.ece

More than 1,500 of the extra troops pledged by Nato allies yesterday to back up the US surge of 30,000 additional soldiers for Afghanistan are already in the country and have been counted before, it emerged yesterday.

They include 700 soldiers sent by Britain to boost security for the period leading up to and beyond the August 20 presidential election. Gordon Brown announced on October 14 that the 700, sent initially for four months, would stay as a permanent additional force.

Other countries which also contributed to the election support force and made the same decision to keep them there permanently have, like Britain, counted them as part of the Nato reinforcements to go alongside the pledged surge announced by President Obama last week.

Nato agreed in April to send between 3,500 and 5,000 troops for a temporary period around the time of the summer election. But, subsequently, a number of countries have agreed for them to stay. “It is true that of the additional troops now being pledged by Nato members, some of them are already in Afghanistan but they were formerly only a temporary force and now they are permanent,” a Nato official said.

Forty-three countries attended a force-generation conference for Afghanistan at Mons in Belgium yesterday to find an extra 7,000 troops for the alliance’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). Washington had hoped for 10,000, and by the end of yesterday, even the figure of 7,000 had yet to be reached. Early calculations produced a total of about 5,500, but at least 1,500 of those have been serving in Afghanistan as part of the election support force [emphasis added].

Nato officials said that it was “perfectly legitimate” to count the election-force soldiers as part of the 7,000 because they could now be deployed in other roles in Afghanistan.

The extra troops pledged by Nato included: Britain, 1,200; Turkey, 60; Poland, 680; Italy, 1,140; Czech Republic, 100; Albania, 125; Croatia, 40 for training police; Lithuania, 20; Portugal, 120 and 1 gendarmerie unit; Romania, 100 and Slovakia, 240.

Non-Nato nations included Georgia, 923; Australia, 120; Armenia, 40; Finland, 25; the Former Yugsolav Republic of Macedonia, 80; Sweden, 125; Ukraine, 22; South Korea, 400; Mongolia, 40, and Montenegro, 40.

However, the new troop pledges have to be offset against the force withdrawals being planned by Canada and The Netherlands [emphasis added]. Canada is currently planning to pull out its 2,800 troops by 2011, and The Netherlands 2,100 soldiers by next year...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

US building pressure on Paks:

Pakistan Told to Ratchet Up Fight Against the Taliban
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/world/asia/08policy.html?ref=todayspaper

The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders, warning that if it does not act more aggressively the United States will use considerably more force on the Pakistani side of the border to shut down Taliban attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said.

The blunt message was delivered in a tense encounter in Pakistan last month, before President Obama announced his new war strategy, when Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, and John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, met with the heads of Pakistan’s military and its intelligence service.

United States officials said the message did not amount to an ultimatum, but rather it was intended to prod a reluctant Pakistani military to go after Taliban insurgents in Pakistan who are directing attacks in Afghanistan.

For their part the Pakistanis interpreted the message as a fairly bald warning that unless Pakistan moved quickly to act against two Taliban groups they have so far refused to attack, the United States was prepared to take unilateral action to expand Predator drone attacks beyond the tribal areas and, if needed, to resume raids by Special Operations forces into the country against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

A senior administration official, asked about the encounter, declined to go into details but added quickly, “I think they read our intentions accurately.”

A Pakistani official who has been briefed on the meetings said, “Jones’s message was if that Pakistani help wasn’t forthcoming, the United States would have to do it themselves.”

American commanders said earlier this year that they were considering expanding drone strikes in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas [i.e. Quetta area], but General Jones’s comments marked the first time that the United States bluntly told Pakistan it would have to choose between leading attacks against the insurgents inside the country’s borders or stepping aside to let the Americans do it...

Even before Mr. Obama announced his decision last week, the White House had approved an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas. A missile strike from what was said to be a United States drone in the tribal areas killed at least three people early Tuesday, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, The Associated Press reported.

Pakistani officials, wary of civilian casualties and the appearance of further infringement of national sovereignty, are still in discussions with American officials over whether to allow the C.I.A. to expand its missile strikes into Baluchistan for the first time — a politically delicate move because it is outside the tribal areas. American commanders say this is necessary because Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who ran Afghanistan before the 2001 invasion, and other Taliban leaders are hiding in Quetta [emphasis added], the capital of Baluchistan Province.

Pakistani officials also voice concern that if the Pakistani Army were to aggressively attack the two groups that most concern the United States — the Afghan Taliban leaders and the Haqqani network based in North Waziristan — the militants would respond with waves of retaliatory bombings, further undermining the weak civilian government...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

These tidbits from the National Post & Reuters, quoting the CDS's tesimony to a parliamentary committee:

"For the Canadian Forces to meet the direction of the government to be out of Kandahar by December 2011, we must begin our planning now .... It is the end of the presence of Canadian Forces in Kandahar province and it is the end of the military mission throughout Afghanistan ....  If PRT remain it will still be a team of civilian officials."

 

[Journeyman]

....considering expanding drone strikes in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas [i.e. Quetta area], but General Jones’s comments....

Geographic nit-picking, but Quetta is well south of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas. When discussing the potential to allow CIA missile strikes into Baluchistan, that would be expanding drone strikes beyond the tribal areas, rather than in the tribal areas.

Nit-picking aside, I don't believe the Pakistan government has the stability (or possibly the will) to contain the inevitable sovereigntist uproar that would accompany the blatant American use of force beyond the tribal areas. And the protests wouldn't have to be Islamists, just pissed-off Pakistani nationalists.

Gutsy move.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Journeyman: Quite right, not a nit-pick, wasn't on top of the thing.  Quetta of course capital of Baluchistan and home of the Pak Army Staff College
http://www.cscquetta.com/
(which Canadian officers used to attend, under the Paks and before them the Brits).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

...home of the Pak Army Staff College (which Canadian officers used to attend....

Still do. We still rotate a Maj through there, in exchange for one Pakistani attending CFC Toronto.....

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good to know!

Mark

 

[The Bread Guy]

Found this interesting......

.... The Chief of the Defence Staff was unequivocal about the withdrawal of some 2,800 Canadian Forces members while testifying Tuesday at the House of Commons defence committee, where MPs repeatedly pressed him to clarify what they regard as vague government messages on how many non-combat troops will be left behind and what role they will play.

Natynczyk’s answer in short was: None, “except perhaps for people who work in the embassy.” Later he specified an attaché may be the only one left in the country.

Yet Canada is sending two surveillance aircraft to Afghanistan in a move some defence analysts see as laying the groundwork for a military mission in Kandahar beyond the 2011 pullout date.

Although the federal government has not made any details public, the U.S. army issued a news release Monday saying that a U.S. firm had been awarded a $12-million deal to modify two aircraft being provided by Canada.

Work on the surveillance planes would be done in the U.S. and in Afghanistan and would be completed by June 15, 2011, two weeks before the stated date for Canadian soldiers to end their mission ....

.... in light of pretty big work being done here and here - just in time to leave, apparently - more from the Ottawa Citizen (highlights mine):

.... Meanwhile, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in a written statement tabled in the Commons that his department “has not developed any contingencies for the extension of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011.” The statement was in a written answer to questions from Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh about planning for a possible extension ....

I guess DND hasn't been talking to PMO?

.... (PM's spokesperson Dimitri) Soudas said the government would shift focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.

The military’s training mission will continue, but it will take place in the safety of protected facilities, he said....

WTF?  At the risk of sounding cliche, don't the troops deserve better than this "he says, she says"?  Or am I being naive?

 

[a_majoor]

More on Pakistan's double game. The Saudis are allegedly involved too (perhaps hoping to surround Iran with Wahhabi influenced theocracies):

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjIxZTRhYmI4ZjA5YzIwZjc4MTlkMTUyMGVjYmQxN2E=

Our Friends, the Pakistanis
[Andy McCarthy]

IBD has an explosive editorial this morning. It alleges that we are being double-crossed — and the killing of our troops in Afghanistan is being abetted — by the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI), which is harboring Mullah Omar and other Taliban notables. The Taliban, moreover, continues to be bank-rolled by the Saudis.

Here's how the game works. The Pakistanis are currently engaged in a much heralded crackdown on jihadists. But they are limiting those operations to the jihadists in the northwest tribal region — i.e., those whose primary target is the Pakistani government. By contrast, the Taliban — i.e., the jihadists targeting the U.S. and Afghanistan — are holed up in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan, under the protection of the ISI. In fact, there are now reports that Mullah Omar has been moved to Karachi to protect him from U.S. drone attacks.

ISI created the Taliban with the help of then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (whose widower, Asif Ali Zadari, is now running the Pakistani government). It continued to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government even after the 9/11 attacks (Saudi Arabia was the only other nation to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government). In fact, IBD says, "before the U.S. invasion, Islamabad evacuated as many as 1,000 intelligence officers, Taliban commanders and foot soldiers from Afghanistan in a major airlift spanning several nights." Pakistan has always regarded the Taliban as a strategic asset against India. Thus, the editorial alleges, ISI expects to install Mullah Omar again once the U.S. vacates Afghanistan in the next couple of years.

The IBD editorial also says that, even as it claims to be stepping up the fight against terrorism (with huge U.S. financial support), "the Pakistani military is running training camps in Lahore for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the al-Qaida subcontractor that attacked terror targets in Mumbai last year. In fact, a Pakistani major was just arrested in that attack."

Here's how the IBD editorial sums it up:

This is the double game Pakistan is playing. In effect, Pakistani intelligence is running its own secret war against America, a war bankrolled by the Saudis. These are the Taliban's shadow partners. And they are winning. In effect, we are offering Pakistan-based insurgents 30,000 new targets with no changes in the rules of engagement. Even now, when our troops come under attack, they are not permitted to pursue enemy fighters back across the border and destroy their Pakistani redoubts. Imagine sending troops to France to free the French from the Nazis but failing to take out their Eagle's Nest next door in Germany. Welcome to our war policy today in Afghanistan.

General Petraeus is scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say about all this — if he's asked. General McChrystal's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee was not very enlightening or encouraging. As the Washington Times reports:

One of the few congressional Republicans to oppose a troop surge, Rep. Walter Jones, drew an analogy between Afghanistan and the Vietnam War in asking whether enemies would be able to escape across the border into Pakistan and exploit the rules of engagement. "Do you have the green light to go across the border in hot pursuit?" asked Mr. Jones, North Carolina Republican.

Troops will be allowed to fire across the border at enemy forces when in pursuit, Gen. McChrystal said, but he did not immediately know whether they would be able to physically cross the border. "Pakistan does have sovereign, strategic interests, which I respect. And I think it's important that what we as a nation do is recognize those, and just like we do with Afghanistan, reinforce that long-term partnership," Gen. McChrystal said.

What if Pakistan's sovereign, strategic interests involve protecting the terrorists whose elimination is our only reason for being in Afghanistan?

 

[OldSolduer]

We better confirm that with Scott Taylor and Sunil Ram. And Steven Staples.....the Three Stooges.

 

[FDO]

:rofl: I love it!! Very aptly put.  Somebody buy Big "S" a beverage of his choice!!