Winning the war in Afghanistan. How?

[cn8of10]

The counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan is under serious strain. More U.S. troops are very likely to be sent there in the near future to stem the tide of insurgent attacks on U.S., U.N. and NATO forces. The strategic objectives of this 9-year war are coming under scrutiny in the public domain.

We are not all military experts (although some of you seem to be very well versed in military tactical history) but the politicans and media have brought issue into public discourse: What is the strategic way forward for the use of the U.S. military forces in Afghanistan?

Based on what I'm reading, the war thus far has been mis-managed. A strategic overhaul is imminient. If I was asked for an opinion, this is what I would suggest:

Strategic objective #1 - Deny the enemy the Pakistan border and abundant food sources while using the natural terrain to protect against large scale attacks by concentrating all U.S troops in the western region from Qonduz to Kandahar.

-Setup large bases (Brigade strength) just outside the major population centers in proximity to large airstrips (Mazari Sharif, Qonduz, Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar) that also can be used for local militia and police training.

-Setup smaller bases (Batallion strength) strategically along the path between Kabul and Kandahar. These should be provisioned for a sustained engagements against a well armed enemy and serve as the base of operations for hundreds of Squads that would patrol the areas between the bases, the Pakistan border, and along the main supply route.

-Reduce the primary use of UAVs to reconnaissance platforms. UAV strikes should be limited to close air-support for ground forces.

Strategic objective #2 - Frequent and productive face-to-face contact with individual clans/villages to win and build trust.

-Supplement miltary base food supplies with food purchased locally at market prices

-Teach building techniques and assist with the construction of appropriate shelter (especially for the monsoon and Winter seasons) with indigeneous materials.

Strategic objective #3 - Create an environment where trans-national and non-governmental organizations can work safely with the native population to build social and physical infrastructure.

-Access to medical-aid

-Construction of schools

-Massive literacy effort


Is this lunacy, feasible, inevitable, etc? If so why and, more importantly, what would your recommendations be if asked?

[RTFirefly]

Let's go back a step further: what's our ultimate objective in Afghanistan? And is attainment of that objective worth the hundreds of billions we're sinking into it?

One justification: we're trying to kill or capture bin Laden. But that's best done with special forces and drones, and otherwise letting Afghanistan be Afghanistan. Not to mention, he's probably across the border in Waziristan anyway.

Another justification: we need to deny bin Laden a safe haven. But there's many places in the Third World where the national government has only nominal authority over its territory, so there's plenty of possible safe havens, and we can't get rid of them all by traditional means of occupation, puppet governments, or getting the locals on our side. Not to mention, our current generation of drone aircraft enables us to keep a close eye on anyplace that we think bin Laden might be active, as long as we control an airbase somewhere close enough to launch the drones from.

A third justification: we want to keep the Taliban from reinstituting 13th-century rule over Afghanistan. A worthy objective, but not sufficiently important to justify the cost. Besides, while victory over the Taliban will undoubtedly be expensive even if possible, we can probably stalemate them pretty cheaply, letting them control the parts of Afghanistan they control, but denying them the rest of the country.

Everything comes back to what we hope to accomplish by being there.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Everything comes back to what we hope to accomplish by being there.

Yes. What does "winning the war" mean here?

In addition, whatever happens in Afghanistan will have an effect on relations withe three countries that are more important to the US: China, Iran and Pakistan, particularly the last two. If your aim is to impose a US-friendly regime in Afghanistan, but that makes relations with those other countries significantly worse, then it's a Pyrrhic victory: losing the war might be better than winning the war.

[Napier]

Ditto RTFirefly. I hear the false assertion on cable news programs that we're doing this to support the present Afghan government, and sometimes somebody will correct this and say it's for #2, the "deny safe haven" argument. But I haven't yet heard experts discuss whether it's practical to do this worldwide, or why doing it in just one country is useful. Though there may be some argument for these, which would explain why so many people with privileged access to information are supporting continued battle.

[PrettyVacant]

I hope you've got answers in this thread because the only strategic options Obama is getting from his military advisers is more troops or more troops, and that's not making enough sense to him.

You simply cannot win when the population does not recognise the system of Government itself - a nominal democracy based faraway in Kabul, leyt alone the politicians.

They will resist its imposition until hell freezes over and tell you all day long how they support your efforts. Walk the fuck away.

US paying the Taliban:

"It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials admits. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10% of the Pentagon's logistics contracts – hundreds of millions of dollars – consists of payments to insurgents.

[Dick Dastardly]

We're not in a position to deny the enemy anything. The Pakistan border couldn't be policed with half a million troops.

The Afghans hate the police more than they hate the Taliban.

It sounds good to do typical counterinsurgency stuff, face to face contact, building roads etc. but in reality it's all undermined by the fact that we're propping up a criminal government with no legitimacy. All we're actually doing in Afghanistan and what the new Obama plan is about is basically holding the fort till after the 2012 election when Obama can then withdraw with no consequences. Of course if the GOP win, and they'll have won claiming Obama is weak in Afghanistan, we need to send more troops etc., the war will continue until somebody gets a second term and we can withdraw.

But in reality we already lost, we're having to pay the Taliban to let us keep supplying our army. No way we can win when we're doing this, relying on a kleptocratic/drug-dealing government, etc. etc. Just hold the fort till 2012 then bugger off is the plan.


Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA officials and ex–military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahideen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort.
In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban.
"It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials admits. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10% of the Pentagon's logistics contracts – hundreds of millions of dollars – consists of payments to insurgents.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...curity-taliban

[gonzomax]

The Taliban has no designs on conquering the world. That would be Al Queada. They are not in Afghanistan. The war is a stupid mistake. The Taliban has control over almost all of the country, well over 80 percent. It would be a long and expensive process to dislodge them assuming it is posible. Then what would a win be? Would we have to conquer every hamlet and valley town? It is a mountainous area about the size of Texas. The Afghanis have been fighting for generations. They not only are skilled and practiced warriors but they are dug in with tunnels and escape routes.
The generals always want more troops. If one time a general would say we have too many send some home, I would be thrilled. The military always thinks they can do the job with more soldiers and bigger bombs. Why do we need a few million more people to hate us? To make us safer? What a joke.

[begbert2]

To win the war in Afghanistan, you declare victory and leave.

[PrettyVacant]

Kind of like 'Mission Accomplished'?

[Tom Scud]

Except with the leaving part.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

Kind of like 'Mission Accomplished'?

Or like "Peace With Honor"?

[Kearsen]

Originally Posted by begbert2

To win the war in Afghanistan, you declare victory and leave.

This.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Or like "Peace With Honor"?

Pretty much.

It's weird to know that has to happen, and that there are years and maybe a decade or two to get through first.

[cn8of10]

First, a correction to the OP:

Originally Posted by cn8of10

Strategic objective #1 - Deny the enemy the Pakistan border and abundant food sources while using the natural terrain to protect against large scale attacks by concentrating all U.S troops in the Eastern region from Qonduz to Kandahar.

My apologies.

Now...

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Let's go back a step further: what's our ultimate objective in Afghanistan?

Good question. As I remember it the war (Operation Enduring Freedom) was launched with Coalition Forces to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and members of Al-Qaeda. The Coalition also enlisted the aid of the Northern Alliance to overthrow the existing Taliban government that was giving Al-Qaeda safe haven.

The overthrow of the (for lack of a better word) official Taliban government has been acheived. Many high-ranking members of the loosely organized Al-Qaeda have been killed or captured. Osama bin Laden is either in hiding in the border region of Pakistan or dead. (The taped audio messages are not proof-of-life IMO. Bin Laden would not have passed up an opportunity to publicly humiliate the U.S. with visual evidence of his survivability against the "Zionist"). The installation of a U.S. friendly government (albeit an unstable and corrupt one) is also complete.

Therefore, has the initial U.S. military objective in Afghanistan (not to be confused with the expanded NATO-led ISAF mission) been accomplished? Should the U.S. military, as begbert2 suggested, "declare victory and leave".?

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

We want to keep the Taliban from reinstituting 13th-century rule over Afghanistan. A worthy objective, but not sufficiently important to justify the cost. Besides, while victory over the Taliban will undoubtedly be expensive even if possible, we can probably stalemate them pretty cheaply, letting them control the parts of Afghanistan they control, but denying them the rest of the country.

This is essentially the strategic objective that I was thinking of: Commit all U.S. forces and resources to secure the Eastern half of the country and make it difficult for the insurgents to be resupplied from Pakistan or across the Northern borders. The military will be 9-years behind schedule on this and thus would need additional forces just to acheive a status quo within 2-3 years.

[cn8of10]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

The Pakistan border couldn't be policed with half a million troops.

I'm not proposing the U.S. military attempt to secure the entire Pakistan border, but instead keep a highly visible and well-supported presence in the border region. Judicious use of observation platforms (UAVs, satellite imagery, etc.) should reveal where the insurgents are crossing the border so that ground assaults could be coordinated and effective with minimal civilian impact. Naturally the military would not be able to attack every group crossing, but knowing where they are would allow intel to pick and choose valuable targets. Somewhat like a counter-insurgency using insurgency tactics.

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

We're having to pay the Taliban to let us keep supplying our army. No way we can win when we're doing this, relying on a kleptocratic/drug-dealing government, etc. etc.

Although I was not aware of the extent of this situation as reported in your cite, I did realize that the supply lines from Bagram AFB to the rest of the country (particularly in the South) was long and exposed. This is why I suggested setting up larger bases near regional airports. Although this would require additional funding and for set up and support, it would reduce the distance that supplies need to be hauled across the country-side. But the strategy should not end there. The U.S. military should actively monitor likely ambush areas along the supply lines and randomly target and eliminate ambush teams (lured by dummy convoys) with ground forces and close air-support.

Political pressure should also be mounted on Karzai to use his family contacts and connections (like Commander Ruhullah) to bring more of the stakeholders to a negotiating table where broader rules and the distrubution of fees can be worked out or face a Summer 2012 withdrawal of all non-NATO U.S. forces.

These should all be combined with concerted efforts to increase regular face-to-face (non-combat) contact with clans/villages in the Eastern region.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by cn8of10

Is this lunacy, feasible, inevitable, etc? If so why and, more importantly, what would your recommendations be if asked?

Announce the withdrawal of American and Nato forces within two years, hard date. Start pullback operations to reduce the footprint of casualties, announce that Pakistan is capable of securing its own frontier and run its own country, regardless of it can or not.

Send mission to Karzai, with a no shit , this is how its going to be, you have two years to get your shit together and give us a reason to engage in further nation building. Same with Pstan, present a plan to secure the control of the nukes and leave them to their own devices (no pun).

For afganis peace is not profitable, they need the American and Nato forces to stay so they can continue to extort money in the guise of nation building.

Declan

[marshmallow]

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
-- Sun Tzu

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by Declan

For afganis peace is not profitable, they need the American and Nato forces to stay so they can continue to extort money in the guise of nation building.

Do they? I suspect this might be news to them.

[Yersenia Pestis]

Originally Posted by begbert2

To win the war in Afghanistan, you declare victory and leave.

I absolutely second that.

[Camus]

Originally Posted by Declan

Announce the withdrawal of American and Nato forces within two years, hard date.
<snip>

Send mission to Karzai, with a no shit , this is how its going to be, you have two years to get your shit together and give us a reason to engage in further nation building.

With this plan, in the event that Karzai did "get his shit together" and American and NATO troops stayed on in Afghanistan, wouldn't President Obama then be called a liar for practically promising the withdrawal of troops, with a date certain to boot, and then completely turning around? In fact, that would be the worst of both worlds as he would be castigated from the right for announcing a withdrawal from Afghanistan and then castigated all over again by going back on his word to withdrawal.

[Mosier]

To win in Afghanistan, we have to help them get rich. If they don't see any benefit to them for us being there, they wont want us.

Build schools. Buy local goods. Build civilian infrastructure. A thousand Taliban attacks a year can't crack the resolve of wealthy people who want to protect their stuff. If the Afghans stay poor, we're gonna lose.

[cn8of10]

Originally Posted by Camus

With this plan, in the event that Karzai did "get his shit together" and American and NATO troops stayed on in Afghanistan, wouldn't President Obama then be called a liar for practically promising the withdrawal of troops, with a date certain to boot, and then completely turning around? In fact, that would be the worst of both worlds as he would be castigated from the right for announcing a withdrawal from Afghanistan and then castigated all over again by going back on his word to withdrawal.

This is one of the reasons why military strategy cannot be executed via press conferences. For the reasons you mentioned, there could be no public knowledge of a withdrawal deadline. This would have to be relayed in high-level (and secretive) talks with the Karzai Administration. If word got out (and IMO it would) the insurgency would only have to lay-low and refuse to engage at any political level until the U.S. pulled out and then wreak havoc.

[gonzomax]

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6571 There is no victory in Afghanistan. They melt into the countryside and wait for us to leave. They have been fighting for generations and are skilled at that kind of warfare. It is a waste of treasury and lives. Al Queada is not there.
I think whenever they announce troop levels they should include the mercenaries. We have a lot more than the troop levels they announce.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by cn8of10

This is one of the reasons why military strategy cannot be executed via press conferences. For the reasons you mentioned, there could be no public knowledge of a withdrawal deadline. This would have to be relayed in high-level (and secretive) talks with the Karzai Administration. If word got out (and IMO it would) the insurgency would only have to lay-low and refuse to engage at any political level until the U.S. pulled out and then wreak havoc.

Yeah right, like that's possible outside of some xbox game.

[gravitycrash]

I'm probably one of the biggest hawks on this board. There isn't anything to win in Afghanistan. Russia must love seeing us wasting billions daily and the Chinese are probably a close second. Let Russia and China and India worry about all of the freaking "stans" in their neighborhood.

I wish Obama had the balls to say fuckit and get us the hell out of that third world shit hole. Sure he and the Dems would probably take a political hit from the right but it would still be the right thing to do.
I hardly agree with Biden on anything but he and others are right. Lob some cruise missiles on occasion and keep the predators flying. Let the Taliban and Al Queada have just enough to worry about staying alive and less time going after the evil Americans and NATO countries.

Again, there is nothing to win there and there never was. Get out now.

[gonzomax]

I am probably the biggest pacifist on the board. It is a high bar to climb over to convince me to back a war. These wars are criminal and shameful. Afghanistan is not a threat to America. The soldiers will wonder what the hell they are supposed to be doing. Nobody can even define what victory is. Since that is the case, how can you justify warring there? Al Queada isn't there. Al Queada does not even want Afghanistan.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by cn8of10

I'm not proposing the U.S. military attempt to secure the entire Pakistan border, but instead keep a highly visible and well-supported presence in the border region. Judicious use of observation platforms (UAVs, satellite imagery, etc.) should reveal where the insurgents are crossing the border so that ground assaults could be coordinated and effective with minimal civilian impact. Naturally the military would not be able to attack every group crossing, but knowing where they are would allow intel to pick and choose valuable targets. Somewhat like a counter-insurgency using insurgency tactics.


Although I was not aware of the extent of this situation as reported in your cite, I did realize that the supply lines from Bagram AFB to the rest of the country (particularly in the South) was long and exposed. This is why I suggested setting up larger bases near regional airports. Although this would require additional funding and for set up and support, it would reduce the distance that supplies need to be hauled across the country-side. But the strategy should not end there. The U.S. military should actively monitor likely ambush areas along the supply lines and randomly target and eliminate ambush teams (lured by dummy convoys) with ground forces and close air-support.

Political pressure should also be mounted on Karzai to use his family contacts and connections (like Commander Ruhullah) to bring more of the stakeholders to a negotiating table where broader rules and the distrubution of fees can be worked out or face a Summer 2012 withdrawal of all non-NATO U.S. forces.

These should all be combined with concerted efforts to increase regular face-to-face (non-combat) contact with clans/villages in the Eastern region.

There is no way to effectively police the Pakistan border, it's just far too big. If you're looking at people crossing the border via a drone, how can you tell who are insurgents/terrorists and who aren't? Of course you can't, effective policing is impossible. There's no way to do the things you want us to do effectively or we'd be doing them. There is no military solution to Afghanistan at all.

[cn8of10]

Originally Posted by Mosier

To win in Afghanistan, we have to help them get rich. If they don't see any benefit to them for us being there, they wont want us.

Build schools. Buy local goods. Build civilian infrastructure. A thousand Taliban attacks a year can't crack the resolve of wealthy people who want to protect their stuff. If the Afghans stay poor, we're gonna lose.

Agreed! Unfortunately the country currently lacks the infrastructure to access much of their potential mineral wealth. Fostering civilian, social, legal, political, and physical infrastucture in Afghanistan is the only way the U.S. can leave the country in a stable enough condition for Afghans to have the incentive and means of resisting fundementalist extremism.

Originally Posted by gravitycrash

I'm probably one of the biggest hawks on this board. There isn't anything to win in Afghanistan.

<SNIP>

Get out now.

The U.S. war hawks of the last Administration have brought us and our allies in NATO to this point and we all have spilled blood for this cause. Should we simply abandon them there now? Is this not also an investment in our own national security? I understand that the strategic goals of the U.S. military in Afghanistan following the Coalition's removal of the Taliban regime has been vague (at best) and perhaps even naive. The goal of pacifying and democratizing the entire country by an occupying military force is irresponsible. But if the U.S. forces can stabilize a region of the country and allow Afghans to utilize their own natural resources to prosper in it, they will create a template which other regions can use/modify to create their own success. As Mosier pointed out, protecting personal wealth will be the incentive for Afghans to fiercly resist a re-take over by the extremist. Perhaps the U.S. military experts may decide that the entire Eastern region is too large of an objective and just focus on the mineral-rich North-East to North West region. 100K troops with adequate support and a clearly defined objective can get much done. IMO they have had not had either (adequate support, clearly defined objective) in the last 8 years.

[cn8of10]

So, 30K more troops on a rapid deployment schedule and a Fall 2011 exit.

It could work..but the clock is running..fast.

[marshmallow]

Originally Posted by cn8of10

But if the U.S. forces can stabilize a region of the country and allow Afghans to utilize their own natural resources to prosper in it, they will create a template which other regions can use/modify to create their own success.

I think they already figured that out.

[gonzomax]

Building schools and infrastructure sounds good until you realize they have nobody to sustain them. It is a country run by local war lords who sell themselves to the highest bidder.
The government is illegitimate and the people know it. They are divorced from the international politics that is changing their country. The median. age is 17.6.
44 percent of the population is under 14 yrs old.
life expectancy is 45
28 percent literacy rate
12 % of the land is arable
The education system is broken. When we are done they will just fall back to where they were.
I know we want to do something to stop them from supporting Al Quada . That is not hard. Just pay higher bribes.

[cn8of10]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

I think they already figured that out.

Unfortunately Afghanistan does not have any known oil or gas reserves. They do have mineral deposits that can be extracted. Yet none of this can be done on a scale to benefit the general Afghan population until there is enough security for business to survive. Concentrating all U.S. troops in the North and North-East region of the country can secure the area enough for businesses to flourish, NGOs to operate safely, concerted literacy programs to take root, stable government systems to be initiated, etc., all the fundamentals for the Afghans to replicate on their own on a larger scale throughout the country. This would also enable a lot of non-combat face-to-face interaction between U.S. soldiers and locals while providing an excellent setting for training large groups of local militia and police forces to maintain the security after U.S. military withdrawal.

Afghanistan just seems too large and sparsely populated to execute any worthwhile attainable objective on a country-wide scale, especially considering the time table that the POTUS laid out in the speech.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Mosier

To win in Afghanistan, we have to help them get rich. If they don't see any benefit to them for us being there, they wont want us.

Build schools. Buy local goods. Build civilian infrastructure. A thousand Taliban attacks a year can't crack the resolve of wealthy people who want to protect their stuff. If the Afghans stay poor, we're gonna lose.

In order to bring their infrastructure up to date, you require someone to maintain and run it. Who would you propose do it? We spent billions in Iraq ,but the educated and middle class fled when we came in. I read that what we built is suffering because the Iraqis can not run or maintain it.
The average Afghani is 15 years old. The ravages of generations of war, cull the strong and healthy out of schools and they wind up with a nation of unschooled kids. They are far away from being able to run their own country. They are good fighters though.
The Karzai government runs a few cities and they are under siege. The people have no use for a government that is so corrupt, but they can not even vote it out. We will spend billions of tax payer money bribing soldiers to switch sides. Soldiering is the only job available to those outside the cities. That is almost everybody.

[gonzomax]

Yemen has been heavily infiltrated by Al Queada and some think the government is about to fall. So a real Al Quada threat may occur on the peninsula. Do you think we should go right in? Do we blow the hell out of Afghanistan, where there are no Al Queada first?
Your young Curtis. Don't worry our policies will have a war for you when you are ready.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Yemen has been heavily infiltrated by Al Queada and some think the government is about to fall. So a real Al Quada threat may occur on the peninsula. Do you think we should go right in? Do we blow the hell out of Afghanistan, where there are no Al Queada first?
Your young Curtis. Don't worry our policies will have a war for you when you are ready.

Yemen's government is fairly stable and has been crushing the terrorists. But honestly I wish there was another Ataturk for the Arab world, if only Mubarak has a young and vigourous successor who would crush violent Islam in the Middle East with the blessing of the US.....but would that happen since that would require some human rights violations and than the UN will b****, whine, and moan.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Yemen's government is fairly stable and has been crushing the terrorists. But honestly I wish there was another Ataturk for the Arab world, if only Mubarak has a young and vigourous successor who would crush violent Islam in the Middle East with the blessing of the US.....but would that happen since that would require some human rights violations and than the UN will b****, whine, and moan.

In other words, you want history to repeat itself. You want some US backed thug to ruthlessly crush the villains of the moment, and ten, twenty years in the future you'll be surprised when people overthrow your pet thug and kill Americans in revenge. Much of our foreign policy problems have been dealing with the results of ideas like yours.

[gonzomax]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,1224610.story OK This story must be wrong then. or

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

In other words, you want history to repeat itself. You want some US backed thug to ruthlessly crush the villains of the moment, and ten, twenty years in the future you'll be surprised when people overthrow your pet thug and kill Americans in revenge. Much of our foreign policy problems have been dealing with the results of ideas like yours.

What about Ataturk? He not only succedeed but is one of the most beloved men in Turkey. Therefore the US must be careful for him not to look like a puppet and an independent man.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,1224610.story OK This story must be wrong then. or

Compared to Afghanistan it's stable. The US will have to deal with this but I think this situation doesn't require thousands of troops but economic aid, supplying arms to Yemen, and perhaps a few discreet assassinations and commadno operations.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

What about Ataturk? He not only succedeed but is one of the most beloved men in Turkey. Therefore the US must be careful for him not to look like a puppet and an independent man.

That never works. People aren't morons; if someone gets aid from the US, and ruthlessly crushes people the US doesn't like then everyone will know he's a US puppet. And anyone who isn't a puppet is going to hate us, because we deserve it.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

That never works. People aren't morons; if someone gets aid from the US, and ruthlessly crushes people the US doesn't like then everyone will know he's a US puppet. And anyone who isn't a puppet is going to hate us, because we deserve it.

What if he genuinely wants to be an ally of the US?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

What if he genuinely wants to be an ally of the US?

Then he wouldn't fulfill our purpose, since we'd be looking for a puppet and not an ally. Allies generally tend to do things like say "No, I won't massacre my own people because you want me to".

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Then he wouldn't fulfill our purpose, since we'd be looking for a puppet and not an ally. Allies generally tend to do things like say "No, I won't massacre my own people because you want me to".

I didn't say massacre, I said suppress Muslim Fundamentalists if they were growing violent.

[gonzomax]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ23Ak01.html How likely is that. Turkey gives America the largest disapproval ratings of any country. They do not love us. It is pretty clear that Northern Iraq will become a Kurdish state ,with oil revenues. The Turk kurds will leave just tearing Turkey apart. Our war has become a threat to their state.

[gonzomax]

Today Karzai says we will have to do the heavy lifting for 5 years. Then for the next 15 we will have to fund their soldiers. So he wants to have his corrupt little hands in our pockets for at least 20 years. Yep, this is a real good idea.

[gonzomax]

After we waste blood and treasure in Afghanistan we will of course have done nothing about Al Quada. That means we have to go into Pakistan for them. Pakistan is ass deep in Al Quada and also have nuclear weapons. It just gets uglier and uglier.
We have to develop intelligence capabilities in the middle east. Part of our problem all along is we have been flying blind. That is part of the reason we went into Iraq. Our intelligence was for shit and we went where we should not have. The other part being the neocons wanted a nice war.

[gonzomax]

The irony is we financed the Afghani troops ,trained them and gave them weapons to fight the Soviets. Now we are fighting them. They are better troops and much better equipped now. They have our tax money and opium money ,along with Saudi money to finance them. We are sowing what we seeded.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

We are sowing what we seeded.

Reaping what we sowed. Sowing is the act of planting seeds.

[gonzomax]

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1054493.html We are conflating the Taliban and Al Qeada. The Taliban hes no global interests and is not a threat to America. Al Qeada is vengeful and wants to strike at America for our actions in the middle east. The Taliban had no part in the terrorism acts against America including 911. Al Qeada trained in Afghanistan. It is a big country and is run largely by local war lords and drug runners. To hold the entire country responsible for the training grounds is ridiculous.

[ralph124c]

I don't understand why it is up to us to "build" an Afghan nation.
It seems to me that Afghanistan is not a nation, and doesn't want to be a nation (in the Western sense). As for pulling out, yes, the Karzai regime would fall-but if it cannot stand on its own, what is the use of propping it up?
Frankly, spending the huge amount of money and lives, to keep Afghanistan under the Karzai regime, doesn't seem cost effective. Why don't we spend the money on improved border security, and tracking systems for illegal aliens? That would make more sense.