Article

2009-09-18 Afghanistan

Nearly 400 Militants Gunned Down Recently: US

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-09-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 Are we really doing as badly in Afghanistan as conventional wisdom decrees? We stepped up operations and the militants did, too, so caulisties of all kinds are up. But, I keep reading that we are penetrating areas that we haven't been before and taking out more of the Taliban's middle management. It sounds to me like we are the ones on the offensive and they are the ones on the run. Am I wrong? Also, it seems to me that it's too early to be making judgements on the overall success or failure of the drive.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2009-09-18 08:54|| 2009-09-18 08:54|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm not an expert on this conflict nor do I play one on the internet, but what I'm hearing from people who are is that

a) we've lost or are losing the people, in part because of unintended consequences of our actions. For instance, security measures have resulted in lower inter-village marriage rates. But inter-village marriage traditionally discouraged local violence and provided a sense of responsibility to the larger community. Not only has that declined due to the fighting and security measures, but with the appointment of unaccountable governors under Karzai, there is an even greater alienation from the government which the Taliban are exploiting heavily. This is one area I expect McChrystal to address but not until they have a strategy well thought out for it since half-baked interventions are likely to backfire big time. McChrystal was SpecOps and will be informed by their method of planning and prep, but he's under heavy time pressure and must work within the constraints of the existing, less-than-optimal constitution there.

b) The logistics of this conflict are difficult. With the increasing implosion of Pakistan, those logisitics have gone from complex to fragile and enormously expensive. And that's *with* the Russian approval for air base use. Pakistan is a huge problem in multiple ways and needs to be contained, one reason not to pull out of Afghanistan.

c) Most of the NATO troops present have been .... less than effective. With the Germans singled out for particular ridicule over incessant drinking, poor discipline and ROEs that are unhelpful. If they were in fact being effective at training and mentoring a relatively non-corrupt, disciplined police force the cities could be used as centers for widening stability and improved infrastructure. If the allies were in fact improving education, health care, local governance tec. then ditto.

Those allies who've engaged in combat, e.g. the Brits, Canadians and Aussies, have badly depleted their reserves of equipment, men and funds. We can b*tch all we like about how they should have invested more in the past, but the fact is that right now they are near tapped out.

So yes, it's a tenuous situation AFAICT. OTOH if we fail there the result will be a swath of nuclear armed Islamicism from Iran through Pakistan and extending down to Indonesia. It is impractical to atttempt an external firewall to contain such a region - consider how 'well' that worked with Iran alone. So what to do next is a huge concern.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-18 09:25|| 2009-09-18 09:25|| Front Page Top

#3 "Are we really doing as badly in Afghanistan as conventional wisdom decrees? We stepped up operations and the militants did, too, so caulisties of all kinds are up. "

Not to disagree with LOTPs interesting points, but heres My impression.

1. This is standard early surge stuff. I mean the reaction in DC sounds STRIKINGLY like it did in the early days of the Iraqi surge when US casualties spiked. Yeah, going after the enemy means more casualties. But not going after the enemy, allows the enemy to consolidate and build their own strength. 2007 in Iraq was hard cause of how the insurgency had build strength from 2004 to 2006. In afghanistan, 2009 is hard, cause of whats been going on from 2006 to 2008

2. Some folks are just waking up to Afghanistan. "OMG, we've been there 8 years!" well where were you when we had been there 7 years? Focused on Iraq, focused on the election whatever. When people who have forgotten Afghanistan turn to it, in addition to realizing how long weve been there, they also see all the deterioration that has taken place since 2005 or so.

3. The political situation. Which is pretty sucky, arguably worse than Iraq at the beginning of the surge. Kharzai, who I still think was absolutely necessary in 2001-2002, is now a corrupt nepotistic leader, who is particularly alienating key constituencies in the Pashtun areas (despite his relying on Pashtunistan electorally). IE, hes far worse as a leader than Maliki turned out to be.

Personally I think the best outcome politically would be revisions to the Afghan constitution to allow locally elected governors. Someone pointed out, no third world country has recovered recetnly from this kind of disorder with a polity as centralized as Afghanistans. Kabul does not have the capacity to run the provinces - let them do more to run themselves.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-18 10:08|| 2009-09-18 10:08|| Front Page Top

#4 Thanks, lotp and liberal hawk for your insights into a mirky situation. Looks like we are doing better militarily than it looks, but politically it is a godawful mess in Afghanistan. the region and in our White House. I certainly would not risk my life and resources based on any commitments this adminstration has made.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2009-09-18 11:15|| 2009-09-18 11:15|| Front Page Top

#5 in our White House

at least re Afghanistan, its no more a mess now then its been at any time since 2003.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-18 11:28|| 2009-09-18 11:28|| Front Page Top

#6 as for the region, theres certainly been major improvement on the ground in Pakistan since the spring. The political situation there is more opaque, but Im not sure its deteriorating lately - Zardari and even the paki military certainly look as commited to fighting the taliban as they did in the spring. I mean in the larger sense Pakistan remains unstable, but its polity has been a mess since, well, the last 50 years. Certainly Perv wasnt helping things.

And the crescent of Islamism, well thats an odd map. It requires for one, overlooking all the non-muslim states between Pakistan and Indon. And of course Bangla is muslim, and barely keeping Islamism at bay, but its hardly a nuke power. And Indon has no nuke program Ive heard about, and seems to making major progress against AQ.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-18 11:32|| 2009-09-18 11:32|| Front Page Top

#7 The arc is more evident if you realize that Pakistani Islamicists meet up with LET terrorists in India.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-18 12:30|| 2009-09-18 12:30|| Front Page Top

#8 LET? you mean Lashkar E Taiba? Isnt that a Pakistani group? How does that relate to anything east of India?

And that India was attacked from Pakistan - well if you want to call that India being part of an arc of nuclear armed islamism, you can. I'm still not quite sure what that means though.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-18 13:59|| 2009-09-18 13:59|| Front Page Top

#9 There is a flow of information, funding and sometime more from Al Q. in Pakistan to LeT in Kashmire to Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia .... JI has been alleged to have observers with the United Jihad Council in India, to which LeT (or its successor groups since it is officially outlawed) belong.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-18 14:28|| 2009-09-18 14:28|| Front Page Top

#10 AQ and its affiliated jihadi orgs are an international conspiracy with many links, and with presence across the muslim world. I agree. That is why we have a Global War on Terrorism (by whatever name its politically correct to call it today)

An arc of nuclear islamism implied, to me, nuclear armed states. Pakistan is nuclear armed, if fighting Islamists. Iran is Islamist, and is close to nuclear weapons. East of Pakistan, there are no islamic states with nuclear weapons, and in fact, no muslim states ruled by hardline Islamists (not even Malaysia, quite). Now its true, that if the Paki Taliban were to takeover Pakistan than the jihadi networks would likely have access to a nuke, and that would be a disaster. But Indon is no more implicated in that than ANY place where a jihadi linked group is active. and indeed, JI in Indon really seems somewhat on the ropes right now.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-18 15:17|| 2009-09-18 15:17|| Front Page Top

#11 This war is just like the cold war in many ways. And Afghanistan has way too many similarities to Vietnam. It is one battle in a long war, and not one which will determine the outcome of the war. Unquestionably this war can be won technically by the US military. But defeat or victory will be achieved in the American living room.

Bush did a lousy job on that battlefield during the War in Iraq, despite Petraeus ultimately pulling his chestnuts out of the fire. Barry seems equally committed to Afghanistan but equally incapable of making the case, especially in terms of the larger war, something Bush understood but could never express without dealing with the truth about Islam.

There is very little value to be gained by achieving victory in Afghanistan. Particularly if it comes at the cost of utterly breaking Pakistan. It is only a dimple in lotp's arc, an arc that assumes a monolithic Islam like monolithic communism. We risk breaking our alliances and risk a serious domestic setback in the larger war for achieving a technical military victory of dubious value. For what?

Get out gracefully now.

We can always utterly destroy it if we need to deal with it again. And when we leave we should make it unmistakeably clear to the world that that is exacly what we will do.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-09-18 17:20|| 2009-09-18 17:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Islam is not monolithic. However, an India that loses Kashmir to nuclear Pakistan and is pressured by China, Pakistan's ally and possibly source of nuclear transfer, will be hard pressed to interdict WMD and other cooperation among JI, Al Q and other Islamicist groups in the area.

I don't know what the right policy is but we need to be clear about the risks involved in all choices.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-18 19:08|| 2009-09-18 19:08|| Front Page Top

#13 Moreover I'm not entirely convinced of the Vietnam analogy, although there are some similarities. There are differences as well. We lost ~58000 US troops in the Vietnam war, which was waged against a northern state which had significant open backing from a unified China. Things are a bit different WRT the Taliban, Al Q, LET etc. and fractured Pakistan.

But if you mean how things have been handled at home, I totally agree.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-18 19:11|| 2009-09-18 19:11|| Front Page Top

#14 I agree about the risks. Unfortunately there is no low risk alternative. We're left to choose from uniformly bad alternatives.

The similarities I fear are not those on the foreign battlefield, but those in the domestic. There's an awful lot of de ja vu going on.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-09-18 19:17|| 2009-09-18 19:17|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:55 49 Pan
23:52 49 Pan
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:37 trailing wife
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:28 LeighG
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:14 Redneck Jim
23:04 Anonymoose
22:42 Zhang Fei
22:36 Mike N.
22:34 Frank G
22:29 abu do you love
22:24 Hank
22:13 lotp
21:58 notascrename
21:47 KBK
21:35 Barbara Skolaut
21:33 Barbara Skolaut
20:59 phil_b
20:56 .5MT
20:55 .5MT