Our strategic geniuses have somehow decided that setting up little bases in remote Afghan villages is the way to win the war. However, the firefight last weekend (that claimed 8 American lives) seems to be refuting this. Our “firebase” was surrounded by high cliffs, from which the Taliban poured fire into the “base”. The GIs were pinned down-so much so that they could only move after dark.
Air strikes on the Taliban were useless-the simply moved bhind another rock.
I recall that this was tried in Vietnam (“Strategic Hamlets”), and the main result was a substanial increase in american casualties.
But heck, let’s pour more american blood and treasure into this dump-we can’t afford to lose!
By the way, why would you place a strongpoint in a valley, with hills surrounding it? Of course, that ay, we can always be firing up at the attackers-sounds like a genius thought this out!:smack:
The key point of ‘strategic hamlets’ was forced population relocation to separate guerillas from their support network, a truly ancient COIN tactic (the Byzantines were fond of it ). It worked in Malaysia, one of modern history’s most successful counter-insurgency programs, which is why the idea was imported to Vietnam in a modified form. But the situation in Malaysia was particularly amenable to that tactic, the situation in Vietnam was not ( never mind it was bungled ).
I don’t know if such a program has actually been put forward, but it is not really possible in Afghanistan. The nature of the terrain means that arable land is at a premium - you can’t shift people around willy-nilly and have them survive. Modern PR sensibilities are such that that kind of extreme tactic probably wouldn’t be tolerated by western voters anyway. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the potential problems.
Because Iraq taught us what a “shining city on a hill” is supposed to look like?
IIRC, they forgot to light the ‘beacons of freedom’ in Vietnam.
Turns out that ‘strategic hamlets’ look dingy and univiting without them.
The Briggs Plan worked in The Malayan Emergency.
But 8 Americans died so that refutes history’s lessons?
Great idea. Afghanistan is 32 million people spread around an area the size of Texas. It is very mountainous and people can hide easily. Under pressure they can just slip across the borders int Pakistan and other neighboring countries. There is not much density of population and rounding up people would be a nightmare.
The Taliban is in control of over 80 percent of the land. Bombing is a waste of money and will just make the people hate us.
Why would air-dropping Shakespearean actors into the Afghanistan desert be a good idea? I know all the worlds a stage and all, but wouldn’t the country need a minimal level of infrastructure and population density for it to have any effect? And Hamlet? Common! That’s the last thing a politically troubled region needs. Maybe a bit of R&J or one of the comedies, perhaps. Actually, if they were really in Earnest, they’d let a bunch of more modern actors out into the Wilde.
Come to think of it, are hamlets even halal? Afghanistan being mostly a muslim country, surely they live in veallages or cowlets, rather than hamlets.
If everyone smokes enough Hamlets maybe they’ll all chill out a bit.
Moved from The BBQ Pit to Great Debates.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
I concur with a couple of earlier posters, what the OP describes is nothing like the “Strategic Hamlets” policy in Vietnam and Malaysia.
Even if the “Strategic Hamlets” could work in Afghanistan from a purely military point of view (which is unlikely for all the reasons other posters have suggested). The sight of “Christian” troops turning innocent muslim peasants out of the homes and dragging them away to a uncertain fate elsewhere, would be the biggest propaganda win imaginable for the Taliban.
So they won’t work in Afghanistan that is why no one AFAIK has suggested we try it. What the current strategy invovles is quite the opposite, which is putting troops on the ground amoung the existing population to protect them from the Taliban. That is inherently riskier but what alernative do we have ?
Raids and ambushes, ambushes and raids. The only way to defeat guerillas is to emulate their tactics.
You’re right, it’s hopeless, nothing whatsoever can be be gleaned from the past. :rolleyes:
I don’t believe that the US failed in Vietnam because of the ‘Strategic Hamlets’ policy, so I don’t see how that is relevant. Even if it were the case, there are some, um, key differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan, so I don’t see how a meaningful comparison can be drawn.
That said, I don’t know if such a plan would work in Afghanistan (for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether or not it was successful in Vietnam)…but then I’m not sure that such a plan is under serious consideration either. I might have missed it, but is there a cite that the US is seriously considering proposing such a plan at this time? I don’t see how the firefight that cost us 8 dead last weekend is any indication that we are moving towards enacting such a plan, but maybe I’m missing something here.
-XT
I’m curious as to what the appropriate strategy in Afghanistan should be.
Are people seriously suggesting the MNLA and the Taliban present similar problems?
It seems clear there are no ideas at this point for how to proceed militarily, politically or any other way.
Win it six years ago, and then get out.
Yup, another well-thought through Dubya war.
A nation searching for stability allied with a super power against an elusive yet fundamentally outnumbered ideological insurgency striving for control.
I’d say the greatest difference is in just how much we screwed the pooch so early.
I disagree, ideas abound, it’s the cost-benefit analysis we’re haggling over.
I remember reading a cartoon in a Penthouse (I think) that featured Reagan and Gorbachev doing a soft-shoe routine while singing of their respective countries’ stupidities to the tune of Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better. The one bit I can remember is,
Reagan - Can you have Vietnam?
Gorbachev - Dah, in Afghanistan.*
How’s that for history 
*I’m trying to find a cite
The OP has it backwards. The base that was attacked was within days of being shutdown precisely because it was too remote and unprotected. The troops were being consolidated to more populated areas. It’s the third paragraph here.