• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bush's Lost Year - Strategic Failure in the GWOT

Islamic Fundamentalist-based Terrorism or Islamo-fascism is a culture, and children are raised in it. The only way to stop it in my opinion, is to destroy the teachers, and educate the children. But destroying the teachers breeds new hate in sympathisers to thier teachings. So I believe the support of many countries is needed, or else falure is assured because the sympathisers will turn thier anger and hatred to the few who are trying to destroy them, more will join thier cause and the problem gets worse.

The job of destroying the teachers needs to be done in full force, and completed fully. Then the international community needs to band together to help rebuild the lands and educate the children.

Even then I don't think that would be the end of Islamo-fascism, but it would definatly be less of a threat to the world.
 
>A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq. [...]. So they are fighting for their freedom.

A bold assumption.  Perhaps they are loyal to their own political interests and are fighting to rule the country - without sharing power - by their own vision?
 
I would agree with Brad that these "people" want to rule Iraq/ all Muslim countries in their own image/beliefs.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq. [...]. So they are fighting for their freedom.

A bold assumption.   Perhaps they are loyal to their own political interests and are fighting to rule the country - without sharing power - by their own vision?

Well, it is a bold assumption. Your own could very well be right, not loyal to Saddam, but very much like him.
 
There is a great deal more evidence that Brad's assumption is closer to the mark than yours. The majority of Iraqis, when they are able to freely express their feelings, voice a desire to simply live in peace and freedom. The "insurgents," when they express any political opinion at all (there are those groups which are simply criminal), usually tend towards a Wahhabi-like expression if Sunni - in other words Sunni religious rule of the whole Muslim world with the harshest interpretation of Shari'a Law. Shi'ite "rebellion" is mostly backed behind the banner of Muqtada al-Sadr, and is clearly a power grab.

Acorn
 
I heard a comment the other day, the gist of it was this - "This is the second war in Iraq. The first one, against Hussein's regime, was won. The new war is between the insurgents (many from other countries) and the Iraqi people who are trying to form a new Government. "

If this war was simply the insurgents versus the US/Coalition aggressors, why are they killing far more Iraqis, than they are coalition members?
 
It has been a couple of days since I discovered this thread. I've looked it over and read some of the linked stuff.

Based on what I see going on here in Afgh now, IMHO there probably was a missed opportunity due to a decision to shift focus to Iraq, but alll the gloom and doom about "abandoning" Afghanistan, or "failing to do meaningful reconstruction" or "not letting non-US forces do peacekeeping outside Kabul" etc., etc. are to a certain extent OBE.

Afghanistan is not the US main effort, but to suggest that it has been "abandoned" is nonsense. The US has a pretty healthy military presence here, which is regularly engaged in combat ops in the Pak frontier country and stabilization and security ops (SASO) all over hte place. That frontier area is the only area in which there is really still an identifiable ACF presence. The majority of the rest of the country, although not "secure" in a Bosnia sense is far from being dominated by ACF(although they have pockets, such as in the area of Kabul and up near Kunduz). The local warlords, for the most part, are sitting tight until after the Presidential Election. The US and the Afgh govt defused the Herat situation with almost no bloodshed.

The Paks are not sitting idle, either. Although one could argue for a certain Byzantine ambiguity in the attitudes of some of their security people, there is not much doubt that a Corps of 70,000 troops has deployed along their side of the frontier and is engaged in rooting out at least some of the ACF who traditionally were based there. Two Pak Army officers are here at CJTF76 as LOs.

As for reconstruction, the US operates 17 Provincial Reconstruction Teams all around the country from the Herat area around through the south and up into the eastern provinces. These are all well supplied with lots of funds and are engaged in various reconstruction projects. The CG of CJTF76 regularly flies off to attend the opening of a new road, new govt facility, etc. all over the country. UK, Germany, NZ,  Netherlands and several other countries operate PRTs in the ISAF North AOO which covers most of the northern portion of the country. The Brits in particular are quite successful. It is a fallacy that ISAF is confined to Kabul.

It is also a fallacy that the US is trying to stop the spread of ISAF: they have recently demonstrated that they are interested in giving up ground to ISAF, not taking it back. The limitation on ISAF is not, IMHO the desire of the US to restrain NATO, but rather the unwillingness of Troop Contributing Nations (TCN) to cough up what is needed, and the uncertain political will behind the 37 nations involved.

Apart from the PRTs doing infrastructure reconstruction, the UN and other agencies are engaged in humanitarian work, while various NGOs and deminers like DDR and Halo Trust are busy all over. Kabul itself, although only one city, is insanely busy with economic activity: the streets are completly clogged with trucks, vans and buses, and all kinds of new businesses are being built, both in the city and in the surrounding area. The markets in the city are full of produce.  The reconstruction business here is most definitely NOT being done "only by big US corporations": driving into Kabul I can count at least half a dozen heavy construction company yards, all apparently operated by locals.Brickyards have sprung up everywhere.

It is definitely not accurate to describe Afghanistan at this moment as a wasteland populated by people who can hardly wait to fight each other again. The general impression is that there is amongst most people desire for stability and peace, if only for selfish gain. The machinrey of government and security is being slowly rebuilt, not without serious problems some of them cultural in basis such as corruption and nepotism.

There is still danger, and the ACF are by no means defeated yet, nor have we probably yet seen the peak of their anti-election terror campaign, but there is nothing on a scale even remotely approaching Iraq's ordeal. Afghanistan will not  become Mississauga overnight, nor even in a year, but there are strong indications that life is returning to normal. People who have been away from the country for a year or so have returned to comment in amazement on the changes. This is why it is important for the West to stay engaged here. Cheers.
 
Peace is what you have when people are too busy making money and indulging themselves to fight.
 
Brad: exactly. And that would be the most important condition for sucess that OEF/ISAF could create: a stable environment that permits economic growth to continue, and to spread its benefits outward. This is, IMHO, a text-book demonstration of the idea that military force is a vital tool in the toolbox of nation-building, but only one tool. Cheers.
 
pbi,

Certainly the US is welcoming outside involvement now.  

Was it always this way?   I seem to recall manning caps in Kabul and jurisdiction issues in the early days.   This is only my perception from the lower tactical spectrum of the issue.     I felt there was no end of TCNs willing to contribute in late 2001 and early 2002.   Even Canada tried to commit to Kabul in 2001, but our infantry were not wanted, no room, hence our involvement with the US TF.   2.5 - 3 yrs later it is obviously harder to entice TCNs when the mission is no longer a cause celebre.

I'm not talking about abandonment, the article is a viewpoint and nothing more, albeit with some truth in it.

However, in my opinion, reconstruction efforts outside of Kabul could have been more effectively managed with greater international involvement, more money, and an earlier response.   My experience tells me that there is/was no end of infrastructure development required in Afghanistan.   A good wage in 2002 was $7 per day.   We didn't hire enough people at that wage.   If we had we probably could have enticed them away from the warlord and substituted a pick for an AK.   And I am not a bleeding heart idealist as you might well know.

It comes back to Barnett and his Leviathan force and his System Administration force.   I don't think Afghanistan post July 2002 needed the 82nd Airborne kicking down doors.   Or at least not as the primary deployment force into the hinterland.   A good follow-up when some ass-kicking was required perhaps.


 
And I am not a bleeding heart idealist as you might well know.

You just destroyed my long-held view of you.I'm shocked...... :crybaby:


I agree that in the earlier days, the ball was fumbled:
Based on what I see going on here in Afgh now, IMHO there probably was a missed opportunity due to a decision to shift focus to Iraq

and that ill-thought out things were done and good things left undone. The US are quite good but they are not supermen or geniuses. The military serves a political system that can be as fickle as ours. Even now there are conflicting currents swirling over the way ahead, especially WRT the very, very thorny issue of Counter-Narcotics(CN) operations.

My point is that I do not see any real evidence that it beyond salvation, or that the "abandonment' which IMHO is at least implied in places on this thread, actually occurred. There is a very difficult, and probably long road ahead of Afghanistan but it appears to me that hte right steps are being taken now, if not before. Cheers.
 
devil39 said:
And I am not a bleeding heart idealist as you might well know.

Aww come on DevilBoy - we all know you wear Birkenstocks...
 
pbi said:
The US are quite good but they are not supermen or geniuses. The military serves a political system that can be as fickle as ours. Even now there are conflicting currents swirling over the way ahead, especially WRT the very, very thorny issue of Counter-Narcotics(CN) operations.

Having spent time around and walked through a few poppy fields, I was always quite relieved that our mission did not include CN.  

CN will be a hornets nest of ill will that will make the greater mission much more difficult to achieve IMHO.

Again this goes back to reconstruction.   I have stated this in other posts.   If I was an Afghan farmer, for no other reason than sheer economics, I would grow opium, given the lack of a more viable alternative.

I believe the figures were that opium produced 10 times the profit of wheat and required one quarter of the water.   One must look after their family.

If Americans (and the rest of the West) care about stopping terrorism and cutting the source of terror funds around the world they should solve the drug consumption problem in the Western world.

Do not increase the risk to your soldiers by ordering them to stop the production of a cash crop in an economically depressed country, a production that is feeding a Western affliction.
 
You could cut Afghanistan, Taliban, and opium from that last post and replace it with Columbia, FARC, and cocaine.

What do you think?  Are there common approaches to rebuilding areas which subsist off illicit narcotic crops? (Approaches which do not consist solely of burning crops)  Is their a lesson to be learned from Afghanistan that we can apply to Columbia (or vice versa)?
 
So far, only the British Govt have shown any real interest in CN, and they have not gone the field-burning route. I have heard that the Us Govt wants a CN plan developed here. IMHO the US military here, and ISAF are understandably both extremely reluctant to go looking for another dragon when the present one is far from dead yet. Really and truly, at this stage of the game it is almost irrelevant if farmers grow poppies. At least they have money in pocket and food in their mouths, which is far more conducive to stability than having their livelihood stomped and burned by foreign troops (or ANA/ANP reluctantly pressed into doing it...) Another problem is that some of the most stalwart allies against AQ/TB/HIG are themselves producers. To launch aggressive CN against them would almost certainly guarantee their enmity, which is not what we need right now. IMHO, both OEF and ISAF have to keep focused on the near term goal-a successful Presidential election next month that is not accompanied by a bloodbath, with a further view to the Parliamentary elections in the sprin of 05.

Let the poppies blow, I say. Now is NOT the time. Cheers.
 
devil39 said:
If Americans (and the rest of the West) care about stopping terrorism and cutting the source of terror funds around the world they should solve the drug consumption problem in the Western world.

That sounds dangerously like something that Lloyd Axworthy may have said.  It is about treating the disease, and not the symptoms.
 
CN has to be solved on the demand side.  As long as the return on risk is high, the risk (to cultivate and distribute) will be taken.

I am not certain legalization is a complete solution.  The distributors might react by forming the equivalent of a diamond or oil cartel to hold up prices.  That will not dissuade the producers from reverting to other crops.

Illicit drug use provides money to organizations that undermine the efforts of legitimate governments (eg. Columbia) to maintain law and order, and to organizations that exploit people (eg. organized gangs involved in prostitution and pornography).  I would guess that 99% of the people who object loudly and frequently to the meddling of the US in other nations indulge in at least occasional drug use.  What is necessary is to make them realize and acknowledge that they are equally guilty of promoting human misery.
 
That sounds dangerously like something that Lloyd Axworthy may have said.

After his honeymoon with our nation's Foreign Affairs, Axworthy joined the faculty at my university.   Although I never took any of his courses, I did attend some presentations and lectures in which he spoke.   In my opinion, he is an angry buffoon who blames the US for the failure of his "Soft Power" doctrine.
 
Infanteer said:
In my opinion, he is an angry buffoon who blames the US for the failure of his "Soft Power" doctrine.

It always struck me that the Soft Power doctrine was like a hothouse flower - it bloomed on paper and in the rarified atmosphere of the halls of academia, but soon withered in the intense glare of reality.
 
It always struck me that the Soft Power doctrine was like a hothouse flower - it bloomed on paper and in the rarified atmosphere of the halls of academia, but soon withered in the intense glare of reality

Yes and like a flower it grows best in a big load of sh*t.

Cheers
 
Back
Top