Let's say we get out of Iraq. Whither Afghanistan? Can we "win" there?

Great Debates
1

I am inclined to believe that we should never have gone into Iraq, and that we should have focused our energy and resources instead on Afghanistan. But here we are, with one foot in each country.

So let’s imagine that we pull out of Iraq in the near future. What happens next in Afghanistan? Will our troops there become the focus (even more so than now) of jihadists bent on driving us from the Middle East? Will Afghanistan become another quagmire? Do we have any chance of success there as long as al Qaeda remains sheltered in Pakistan? And if we pursue them into Pakistan, do we risk destabilizing that country (which, not incidentally possesses nuclear weapons)? Or if we push Pakistan’s Musharraf into pursuing al Qaeda, would that so alienate him from his own people as to invite a coup?

I am in favor of getting out of Iraq, but I sometimes think that many of my fellow Democrats aren’t thinking much beyond that immediate objective. What happens next? What should happen? Can we “win” in Afghanistan? What would victory look like?

What are your thoughts and predictions?

2

[QUOTE=spoke-]
I am inclined to believe that we should never have gone into Iraq, and that we should have focused our energy and resources instead on Afghanistan. But here we are, with one foot in each country.

So let’s imagine that we pull out of Iraq in the near future. What happens next in Afghanistan? Will our troops there become the focus (even more so than now) of jihadists bent on driving us from the Middle East? Will Afghanistan become another quagmire? Do we have any chance of success there as long as al Qaeda remains sheltered in Pakistan? And if we pursue them into Pakistan, do we risk destabilizing that country (which, not incidentally possesses nuclear weapons)? Or if we push Pakistan’s Musharraf into pursuing al Qaeda, would that so alienate him from his own people as to invite a coup?

I am in favor of getting out of Iraq, but I sometimes think that many of my fellow Democrats aren’t thinking much beyond that immediate objective. What happens next? What should happen? Can we “win” in Afghanistan? What would victory look like?

What are your thoughts and predictions?
[/QUOTE]

Hoo, boy, tough question.

I am inclined to believe that we have blown our window of opportunity. I do not think that Americans will support withdrawing from Iraq only to send the troops immediately to Afghanistan.

Victory in Afghanistan has one simple measure: the destruction of Al Qaeda as an effective force. At this point, anything beyond that is up to the Afghanis.

3

It is bigger than that. If we had gone into Afghanistan while we were still loved and had made it a it a better place we would have had a chance to make it all work. We could have cleaned out the Taliban and rebuilt the place. Then there would have been pressure on the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam. America would have appeared to be what we profess to be. But the lure of the oil was more than the Bushies could resist and they wrecked it all. We have greatly grown the enemies of America and shown ourselves to be just what the Arabs warned that we are. We provided their propaganda with a lot more than they needed. It is now beyond salvage.
If we went back into Afghanistan and made it right just because we should. Then after time it could be a good point we are sorely lacking.

4

The UN has it covered, anyway. NATO is at the moment in command of troops from from 36 NATO, nine partner and two non-NATO / non-partner countries . The force includes troops from all the EU nations.

5

Someone please explain how the U.S. could have done anything more in Afghanistan. al-Qaida and the Taliban retreated into Pakistan. You think the U.S. should have invaded Pakistan?

Most people thought the Afghanistan campaign was waged brilliantly, up until the time that they needed a criticism of the Iraq war, and ‘pulling resources out of Afghanistan’ was a good one, because it was an argument you could use to oppose the war in Iraq without opposing the idea of conflict in general. You could make it while still looking strong on defense.

But the reality is that the Afghanistan conflict is not one you can solve with numbers. In fact, that would probably make it worse by making the U.S. look like an occupying power, which could be used as propaganda by the enemy to recruit more people to the fight. In the meantime, without an enemy to fight they’re just targets. Instead, the model has been a light military footprint, very early insertion of an acceptable leader and an indigenous government, and economic aid. Now that the Taliban is coming back and is willing to engage, NATO forces are wiping them out.

Far from being screwed up, the war against the Taliban was a textbook example of how to do this kind of thing right. That the place is still a hellhole is testament to how difficult the nature of this conflict really is.

Like it or not, Iraq and Afghanistan are models for how future conflict against the U.S. is going to play out. When you have a Pax Americana due to an extremely lopsided military power, the only way people can fight is through terrorism, blackmail, and guerrilla warfare. Leaving Iraq isn’t going to stop it. You might buy a year or two of peace that way, until the next big terrorist attack, or embassies start getting bombed, or U.S. shipping interests get attacked, or whatever.

One of the reasons I believe that the U.S. has to stick it out in Iraq is because the consequences of showing that an insurgency can break the will of the country and cause the world’s mightiest military to turn tail and go home, you are going to get much, much more of it. At this point in the game, it’s important for the U.S. to show that it has the willpower to see a difficult situation through. Even if it takes 10 years.

And since I’m Canadian, I’ll say the same thing of the Canadian Armed Forces, who have a leading role in Afghanistan. If we have to stay there and fight for 20 years, that’s what we have to do.

6

Afghanistan’s a heroin supply region. Until you break that, the place will always be the same.
This is, of course, a lot easier said than done. Which is why we should never have tried.
The idea behind sweeping away the Taliban was to get to Osama. It was a means to an end, not an end in itself. We did it brilliantly, then let Osama get away. We should have made it clear that we would have been willing to invade Pakistan and turn its tribal areas to solid glass if he wasn’t given up.
We didn’t, he’s still loose, and we look like impotent fools. Now, getting rid of the Taliban is being promoted as an end in itself. This is something that can’t be done. It shouldn’t be tried. If we’re not willing to get Osama, we need to just get out. If we are, we need to put amazing pressure on Pakistan, until Osama & Co pop out because they’ve been squeezed out.
What we need is a President who is merciless in pursuit of him and totally focused. Yes, this won’t get rid of terrorism. That’s not the point. The point is to at least be able to show you can’t get away with it. What we’ve done up to now is to show that you can. This is too stupid for words.

7

I have read that Afghanistan is a place that can only be dealt with with large numbers of troops. Air power is not effective in a place that is not rich in targets. No Baghdad to wreck.
It is a place run by war lords now. A opium growing paradise . Drugs finance high grade weaponry. How does the military change that dynamic.?

8

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I have read that Afghanistan is a place that can only be dealt with with large numbers of troops. Air power is not effective in a place that is not rich in targets. No Baghdad to wreck.
It is a place run by war lords now. A opium growing paradise . Drugs finance high grade weaponry. How does the military change that dynamic.?
[/QUOTE]

Chase away the militias while winning over the people; rebuilding infrastructure, providing different means of employment.

9

Hey, Agent Orange could work…

10

Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a primitive place.

Put crudely it does not much matter what we do there, in the worst regions there is nothing to destroy, also its borders are not that porous, the only real ingress for Taliban/Al Qaeda is via Pakistan - who don’t really like yokels.

Afghanistan is winnable, because it is not urban warfare, it is a good training ‘sand pit’ for Special Forces - replacing skirmishes in Oman.

My guess is that it will be kept going, but highly contained.
There is little point in training for urban warfare as it is both impossible to control and heaps of rubble (first reaction) are no longer ‘urban’.

There is a lot to be said for training for ‘post urban’ warfare.

I would not be at all surprized if both sides were orchestrating things, traditional warlords encouraging Taliban to sling their new recruits against pre-warned objectives.

11

[QUOTE=pantom]
We should have made it clear that we would have been willing to invade Pakistan and turn its tribal areas to solid glass if he wasn’t given up.
[/QUOTE]

As I suggested in my OP, large-scale US military operations in Pakistan are not a realistic option. Nor would it be a good idea to start rattling sabers at Pakistan. Either saber-rattling or actual military strikes could easily have the effect of destabilizing that country. However imperfect an ally Musharraf may be, he is far better than a destabilized (and radicalized) Pakistan. Pakistan has a population of 165 million and nuclear weapons to boot. (You think a radicalized Afghanistan was bad?)

And that’s part of the point of my OP. How do we realistically deal with the problem of al Qaeda slipping back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan? (Or just setting up shop in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan?)

Turning (or threatening to turn) Pashtun areas into “solid glass” is not a realistic option. Bellicose talk like that will only elicit a bellicose response, and quite possibly lead to Musharraf being toppled and replaced by a radical (and nuclear armed) regime.

12

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
The UN has it covered, anyway. NATO is at the moment in command of troops from from 36 NATO, nine partner and two non-NATO / non-partner countries . The force includes troops from all the EU nations.
[/QUOTE]

Quiddity, your cite was last updated in February, 2005. And I’m not sure what you mean by “the UN has it covered.” The International Security Assistance Force (authorized by the UN) comprises 32,000 personnel in country (including combat troops). Of the troops, 12,000 are US military.

An additional 8,000 US troops remain under US command in Afghanistan. So the US (if my math is right) has 20,000 troops in country.

So of the 40,000 troops and other personnel there, 20,000 are from the US. I am not denigrating the contributions of other nations (which are very real and very important), but the US is still on the hot seat in Afghanistan.

13

spoke-: There is no such thing as realistically in this case. We were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, and we have yet to conclusively bring in/defeat the perpetrators. This is not a tenable position.
Either we deal with them, or we will face the consequences, which will be severe. So realistic doesn’t enter into the equation.
From the beginning, Stratfor has maintained that we would have to deal with Pakistan at some point. I agree with them. The problem with Iraq is that the diversion of resources was far far worse than most people could even begin to imagine, because dealing with Pakistan will indeed take far more resources than anyone is willing to think about right now.
But it’s the only way. If Pakistan isn’t dealt with, and remember that here we are talking about the nuclear proliferator par excellence, something else that no one apparently wants to think about or face, then we might as well just give up.
Put it this way: the only realistic way for the West to have a peaceful future is to deal with the reality of Pakistan. Anything else is just magical thinking.

14

[QUOTE=pantom]
spoke-: There is no such thing as realistically in this case. We were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, and we have yet to conclusively bring in/defeat the perpetrators. This is not a tenable position.
Either we deal with them, or we will face the consequences, which will be severe. So realistic doesn’t enter into the equation.
From the beginning, Stratfor has maintained that we would have to deal with Pakistan at some point. I agree with them. The problem with Iraq is that the diversion of resources was far far worse than most people could even begin to imagine, because dealing with Pakistan will indeed take far more resources than anyone is willing to think about right now.
But it’s the only way. If Pakistan isn’t dealt with, and remember that here we are talking about the nuclear proliferator par excellence, something else that no one apparently wants to think about or face, then we might as well just give up.
Put it this way: the only realistic way for the West to have a peaceful future is to deal with the reality of Pakistan. Anything else is just magical thinking.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. We ignore Pakistan right now because for the moment a favorable government is in power. But that government is unstable, is has only titular control over some regions of the country, and stays in power by making concessions to a lot of unsavory people. Musharref is walking a tightrope.

If that government falls, it could be replaced by powers that are sympathetic with and even allied with al-Qaida. The last assassination attempt on Musharref was attributed to al-Qaida.

This could put a well-developed nuclear weapons program in the hands of terrorists. The threat from Iran pales in comparison

And the biggest problem is, there’s not a damned thing the U.S. can do about it. It is simply not possible to invade Pakistan. Even if they didn’t have nukes, it’s a huge country with difficult terrain and a very hostile population.

15

We already did win. In a rather short amount of time we trounced the Talibans army and tossed them out, and put in a more democratic government ( Note “more”, as I know the current govt is hardly a model of democray in action- but it is far better than the Taliban.)

So, we already won. Next question?

16

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
We already did win. In a rather short amount of time we trounced the Talibans army and tossed them out, and put in a more democratic government ( Note “more”, as I know the current govt is hardly a model of democray in action- but it is far better than the Taliban.)

So, we already won. Next question?
[/QUOTE]
No, we lost. We never cared about the Taliban before Bin Laden attacked us; when he got away, we lost. It wouldn’t matter if we’d turned Afghanistan into Utopia and the 51st state after that; we still would have lost, since getting him and Al Qaeda was supposedly the point.

17

Pakistan is not necessarily as unstable as has been suggested.
The section of the population that is really radicalized is pretty unsophisticated, remote tribesmen and misguided kids from the religious schools.

The urban population is pretty sophisticated, from watching Afghanistan, Iran and sadly Iraq, it probably has a pretty good idea of its fate if the place turns fundamentalist.

Historically Pakistan’s big beef has been with India, and that has calmed down.

As with Egypt, the government is in a shaky position, but determined to remain in control, even if it has to resort to rather brutal measures.

18

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Quiddity, your cite was last updated in February, 2005. And I’m not sure what you mean by “the UN has it covered.” The International Security Assistance Force (authorized by the UN) comprises 32,000 personnel in country (including combat troops). Of the troops, 12,000 are US military.

An additional 8,000 US troops remain under US command in Afghanistan. So the US (if my math is right) has 20,000 troops in country.

So of the 40,000 troops and other personnel there, 20,000 are from the US. I am not denigrating the contributions of other nations (which are very real and very important), but the US is still on the hot seat in Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]

Missed the date up top. However, if you start searching on each nation to find out how many troops there are there, you quickly come to a bigger number than 40,000, though the ‘official’ site says many less. Maybe they’re obfuscating to confuse the other side.

Regardless, ‘won’ is a fascinating concept. I think you (vous) maybe need to define the parameters of ‘won’ before you start claiming it. Certainly ‘annihilate all of Al-Qaeda for all time’ wasn’t achieved. The best that was achieved before was ‘drive most of the Taliban out of the major cities for a while’. That doesn’t constitute ‘win’ in my estimation.

19

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Missed the date up top. However, if you start searching on each nation to find out how many troops there are there, you quickly come to a bigger number than 40,000, though the ‘official’ site says many less. Maybe they’re obfuscating to confuse the other side.

Regardless, ‘won’ is a fascinating concept. I think you (vous) maybe need to define the parameters of ‘won’ before you start claiming it. Certainly ‘annihilate all of Al-Qaeda for all time’ wasn’t achieved. The best that was achieved before was ‘drive most of the Taliban out of the major cities for a while’. That doesn’t constitute ‘win’ in my estimation.
[/QUOTE]

Look how many troops the USSR failed with, even with tactics more ruthless than any the West could get away with. And a lot of the EU troops are carefully kept away from the hot spots.

The number of troops fighting in the south is only a fraction of the total number. Just the British and some of the 27k Americans.

I fully support the NATA mission there but have a feeling it’s too little, to incompetently, too late.

The bottom line is that Afghanistan is the worst country in the world to try and occupy. And I use that term not to suggest that is our mission but because that is how a large segment of the rural, Islamic population perceive it, particularly in the south.

They want nothing to do with anything that counters their conservative view of Islam. Not schools for girls, women working or westerners helping. And they rely on the opium crop for survival. Without it they are perforce, cheap mercenaries for the Taliban.

It’s going to be an incredibly difficult task to get these people on our side and every time NATO slaughters a compound of civilians to kill a couple of gunmen the job gets harder.

In the end I don’t beleive we are making a good enough effort to deal with the problems.

If I was running things I’d stop all the aerial bombing shit - the kills are not worth making things worse - and I’d buy every last bit of the opium crop at premium prices and use it to address the diamorphine shortage by building an Afghan pharma industry.

We are too blinded by casualty aversion (leading to needless civilian deaths), anti-drugs hysteria, and private sector good -public sector evil rhetoric to succeed. And with the Iraq calamity we don’t have the resources to address the problem properly.

20

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
I think you (vous) maybe need to define the parameters of ‘won’ before you start claiming it.
[/QUOTE]

So who’s claiming it? The question posed in the OP is whether “victory” is possible, and what it would look like.