Article

2013-12-23 Afghanistan

Americans Think Afghan War Was Not Worth Fighting: Poll

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 2013-12-23 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Some of it made sense, some didn't.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-12-23 00:20|| 2013-12-23 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 We got Bin Laden, that was worth it.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-12-23 01:02|| 2013-12-23 01:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Perhaps more ominiously, a majority of surveyed Americans feel smilarly about the US-Japan security treaty.

BAD NEWS FOR JAPAN, GOOD NEWS FOR CHINA + ANTI-US GLOBALISTS, INCLUD ANTI-AMERICAN AMERIKAN GLOBALISTS.

Year 2013 is being labeled on the MSM-Net as a bad year for the Bammer, wid New Year 2014 likely to be much worse.

As for Afghanistan = AFPAK, we'll see iff the feeling remains the same iff Radical Islam takes over both Afghan's Govt. + Pakistan's nukes, as PERTS ARE ARGUING THAT 10-15,000 US TROOPS IN POST-2014 AFGHANISTAN IS NOT ENUFF IN NUMBERS OR FIREPOWER, ETC. TO DETER THE HARD/BURQUA BOYZ.

POST-2014 AFGHANISTAN MIGHT AS WELL BE THE PERENNIALLY POROUS US-MEXICAN BORDER???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-12-23 01:49|| 2013-12-23 01:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Worth it? One must ask only a few questions:

Q: What was the AFG threat to our (the United States) national security?
A: I've not heard or seen a convincing argument in support of any AFG threat.

Q: What were the strategic goals, and were they met?
A: I've never heard anyone articulate the strategic goals regarding our AFG involvement. If a strategic goal was the defeat of AQ or the Taliban, the mark was obviously missed.

Q: Has US involvement changed anything for the better, for the AFG people?
A: Only time will tell, but historic efforts at civilizing the region have not been met with much success.

At the tactical level, our involvement was also a massive cock-up. Assigning "Operational Areas" of responsibility to US and ISAF brigades with little or no overlapping coordination or authority and hamstringing them with restrictive ROE, was/is a disaster.

Dotting the land with HESCO barrier forts (FOB's and COP's) from which humanitarian (State Department led nation building) and host-nation training efforts could be staged, in the end, appears to have accomplished little.

Also accomplishing little and turning the battle space into a confusing command & control disaster, was the CIA and SOF 'bad guy' kill or capture effort. Not the first time for this however, Iraq was a series of confusing wars within wars. Add to this confusion the turmoil of tribally focused Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF of all flavors) running totally amuck and unmonitored.

Worth it? In my opinion, absolutely not, not as currently played out. It was a very bad hand handed to US Brigade and ISAF commanders by the political leadership in Washington. They (the military) did, and are doing the best they can.

Packing it in this morning, 'blowing in place' what can't be flown out, and getting the hell out would be very wise and save a lot of wonderful young lives.

Just my opinion mind you.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-12-23 03:08|| 2013-12-23 03:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Getting rid of bin Laden and his mob was worth it, nation building there is not.

Posted by BernardZ 2013-12-23 08:24|| 2013-12-23 08:24|| Front Page Top

#6 No war with crappy ROE is with fighting.

Sort objectives, accomplish objectives using superior force, come home leaving a message that we will return if you do not shape up.

Posted by Airandee 2013-12-23 08:29|| 2013-12-23 08:29|| Front Page Top

#7 I've never heard anyone articulate the strategic goals regarding our AFG involvement.

"These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."
George W. Bush, Statement To Joint Session Of Congress September 20th 2001

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. "
George W. Bush, September 11th 2001

President Bush did articulate strategic goals for Operation Infinite Justice.

These goals were never rescinded but they sort of faded away as Operation Infinite Justice was neutered and turned into Operation Enduring Freedom.

By October of 2001 Colin Powell offered political power to 'moderate Taliban.'

If a strategic goal was the defeat of AQ or the Taliban, the mark was obviously missed.

True. If the goal was to put Western political and cultural masochism on display the mark was not missed, unfortunately.

Only time will tell, but historic efforts at civilizing the region have not been met with much success.

No one is even attempting to civilize the region. The consensus among the Western political class is that elements of liberated Afghanistan's alien tyranny are to be imposed on Western peoples.

"The truth is that the Afghan war was useful for the Americans, not for the people of this country," Senator Asaas told TOLOnews.

The good Senator is wrong, unfortunately. If he was right that would mean that the US had won the Afghan war.

Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2013-12-23 08:30|| 2013-12-23 08:30|| Front Page Top

#8 I think it went downhill the minute "Crusader" was removed from the Op.

Posted by Shipman 2013-12-23 08:45|| 2013-12-23 08:45|| Front Page Top

#9 Sorry, two one liner statements do not constitute national strategy. It's a bit more involved than that.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-12-23 09:04|| 2013-12-23 09:04|| Front Page Top

#10 It's a bit more involved than that

It was.

Unfortunately Clausewitz's Maxim took effect the moment the Taliban retreated from Kabul.

Posted by Pappy 2013-12-23 10:11|| 2013-12-23 10:11|| Front Page Top

#11 Ditto Pappy. Doug Stanton's 'Horse Soldiers' provides a fairly accurate story of the early, and successful US support to the Northern Alliance. Unfortunately, like the early Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) program of Vietnam, the big army, the Klingons, US State, and the industrial defense establishment got involved. Ike was right. His son John just passed away last week by the way.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-12-23 10:30|| 2013-12-23 10:30|| Front Page Top

#12 We need to quit "nation-building". Go in, kill bad guys, break things, then leave.

Posted by Frank G 2013-12-23 11:11|| 2013-12-23 11:11|| Front Page Top

#13 Nation building is a conceit we learned after WW II and serves only to create immense domestic and foreign forces who learn the way to keep the money flowing long after the point is made. FrankG has it right, but I would add with a very credible threat at the end for worse to come if they reoffend.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2013-12-23 11:49|| 2013-12-23 11:49|| Front Page Top

#14 Next door Pakistan needs sorting out more than Afghanistan.

DPC sum up what is wrong with Pakistan.

Posted by Paul D 2013-12-23 12:04|| 2013-12-23 12:04|| Front Page Top

#15 After WWII what we did was nation REbuilding. The countries in Western Europe were by and large civilized. Most had some tradition of more or less representative government. Most of what we did with the Marshall Plan was to help rebuild the destroyed infrastructure.

Iraq and Afghanistan don't have those things. We were trying to build an infrastructure and impose democracy, at the same time fighting a powerful. insurgency.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2013-12-23 12:12|| 2013-12-23 12:12|| Front Page Top

#16 Told ya we shoulda nuked it from orbit.

Posted by Mojo 2013-12-23 12:52|| 2013-12-23 12:52|| Front Page Top

#17 Couple of things:

1. Afghanistan could have avoided the war entirely by simply handing over bin Laden. It was THEIR decision to go to war. Taliban could still be running that country today had they simply done that.

2. Had we got him at Tora Bora, I doubt things would have lasted this long. Whoever made that decision to allow our "allies" to get bin Laden at Tora Bora probably made a decision that has cost a lot of lives over the years. But hindsight is 20/20

Posted by crosspatch 2013-12-23 12:53|| 2013-12-23 12:53|| Front Page Top

#18 Taliban could still be running that country

Beg pardon?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-12-23 14:53|| 2013-12-23 14:53|| Front Page Top

#19 Ok my rather jaded opinion on this one. First, going into Afghanistan was necessary in my mind. Taliban and AQ were deeply imbedded there. Did we do it right? Not by a long shot. ODA555 was the perfect start. Some SF teams in there blowing shit up and killing bad guys, it's all good. But then came the conventional forces, they needed to play in the great defense of America. So in came the monster logistics of supporting divisions and brigades. The support had to cross no mans land and IED country. Now loggies that know nothing about fighting are getting their asses handed to them and paying the price for all the generals who are wanting a combat command. Our nation was just off of the great air land battle doctrine and knew nothing about fighting an insurgent war. In 2000 I was at CGSC and the big year end exercise was an insurgent war in the Philippines. The battle plan was to take the islands with two Armor divisions! Imagine that, there are 7,000 islands. Like I said, trying to fight insurgents with air land battle doctrine. A complete failure. We should have learned this lesson from the Russians, they fought cold war tactics, two up - one back, in Afghanistan and got clocked.

We should have used SF teams, set up small FOBs, supported them by air and with air strikes. Hunt and kill the Taliban and AQ at night, hunker down by day, and screw the nation building. Those folks are tribal, they want to remain that way, LET THEM! Just be sure to kill those that were involved in AQ and those that are actively supporting it.

I get the SOCOM glory hound complaints that will follow. I'm not nicking anyone who was there and fought and certainly not those that were hurt or killed. But I do believe in the right force for the right fight. Iraq was a conventional fight with SOF in a supporting roll. It should have been the other way around in Afghan.

This and a dollar will get a cup of coffee most anywhere.

Posted by 49 Pan 2013-12-23 17:11|| 2013-12-23 17:11|| Front Page Top

#20 I figure it was worth fighting until Bush 'declared victory' and moved the GWOT to Iraq. Whether THAT was worth fighting is a different question, but at least it was a way out of Afghanistan.

Posted by Glenmore 2013-12-23 18:18|| 2013-12-23 18:18|| Front Page Top

#21 Was worth going in initially - until we started nation-building - there wasn't a nation there to begin with by all accounts.

I think Ann was right:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

-- Ann Coulter

Posted by CrazyFool 2013-12-23 18:39|| 2013-12-23 18:39|| Front Page Top

#22 What Frank said.

Posted by Barbara 2013-12-23 19:07|| 2013-12-23 19:07|| Front Page Top

#23 Big thing you overlook Besoeker and others - talk to those who have been there, they might have you reconsider some of your reasoning. We are screwing the regional and tribal advocates of freedom by bailing on them. I know there are some good men and their families who are going to have to flee the country, like happened in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Plus there are all the basic human rights we bled for that are going to vaporize for the girls (and young boys) there -- we managed to build schools for and give a glimpse of hope and non-Islamic non-submissive non-chattel life. For many, that made it worth it, and yet people are ignorant or else just dump on it. Think about it, whats the biggest embarrassment and regret re: Vietnam? Bailing out and letting good people twist in the wind (or a figurative noose). I get the feeling many are trying to justify doing it again.

So dont blithely sound off like there is no cost for what ultimately will be seen as cutting and running. There is. I paid to a small extent, and I know personally that many others tha will pay or have paid far more emotionally and physically, and some gave all they had. Some are still over there training Afghan troops (OMLT-A teams and other Operations of that sort that I know of). This is with our NATO allies, rarely any of the big guys like the Germans or French, but instead its the smaller countries forces, good troops from places like Slovenia you never hear about in the news. Ask them, and those who have helped them. We know the consequences, and dread their coming. Maybe to the armchair folks its ok to say its a failure and wash their hands and "move on". But for those involved, its not a failure that can simply be dismissed and handwaved away - at least not when it comes to up close and personal things that civilians will never truly understand.

That being said: You're conflating 2 different things. The initial part of the war, and what it has evolved into post Iraq (yes, Iraq - the end of OIFs changed a lot of things). Afghanistan morphed from a fight to defeat a group in that region to a place like Vietnam, in that it was the only game in town for theater of combat "ticket punches" for would-be flag officers etc.

The initial war was unarguably needed, and was successful - the central government was removed, and eventually Bin Laden was killed (should have been sooner) as well as a much of the central AlQ Afghanistan organization and leadership.

The latter part of the war necessary/successful? Arguably no, because of a few fundamentals - mission creep, Bad ROE, too much "Lawfare" from the REMFs and other Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon, and the biggest one of all:

You cannot "nationbuild" when there is no nation to begin with.

Its tribal, and always has been. The best thing would have been to divide the place up into tribal areas, dissolve the central government, then let them kill each other - cut deals with some to operate against the others to let our SF and fast mobile (Rangers, etc) engage in anti-AQ ops. That and a couple airbases for CAS.

The worrisome thing? Pakistan will go the same way if we don't see things clearly when (not if, but when) it fails as a nation. The difference is, in Pakistan, there will be nuclear weapons at hand, which will force our hand into intervening, violently if necessary.

Posted by OldSpook 2013-12-23 23:28|| 2013-12-23 23:28|| Front Page Top

#24 The scary question OldSpook - when Pakistan fails as a nation will we have the leadership to deal with it?

Or will our 'leadership' do a half-assed job of it to score points on the latest ABC/NBC/CBS poll?

Posted by CrazyFool 2013-12-23 23:53|| 2013-12-23 23:53|| Front Page Top

23:53 CrazyFool
23:31 OldSpook
23:28 OldSpook
22:33 OldSpook
22:32 Chris
22:28 OldSpook
21:43 Pappy
21:41 Threreling Munster6125
21:38 Pappy
21:33 Threreling Munster6125
19:45 Au Auric
19:26 Au Auric
19:12 Au Auric
19:07 Barbara
19:01 Barbara
19:01 USN, Ret.
18:57 Au Auric
18:54 Au Auric
18:53 USN, Ret.
18:47 USN, Ret.
18:42 swksvolFF
18:39 CrazyFool
18:27 P2kontheroad
18:22 Glenmore