Article

2011-06-23 Afghanistan

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 Steve White 2011-06-23 16:56|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 But while rooting out and killing al-Qaeda terrorists is important, doing that alone doesn't fix the problem in Afghanistan.

We can't fix the problem in Afghanistan in Afghanistan, we can't only fix the problem of Afghanistan in the shit-matrix that is GreaterPakistan. Withdraw, rethink, keep the killing going from the carriers and prepare for the main event.

Posted by Goldies Every Damn Where 2011-06-22 17:22|| 2011-06-22 17:22|| Front Page Top

#2 What do you think will be the main event, Goldies, et al?

Posted by trailing wife 2011-06-22 18:42|| 2011-06-22 18:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Iff PAK has "Big Brother" = BFF CHINA, Aghanistan still has RUSSIA despite the outcome of the Soviet Afghan war + afterwards.

IMO there's no way in hell = borsch that Moscow is going to allow a pro-MilTerr Govt in post-US Pak to threaten Iran's Oil, Central Asia energy pipelines, or support Caucasian Militants.

MOWSCOW HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOR MOSCOW [Russia] - THEY'LL HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT GENOCIDING OR NUKING, ETC. EVERYONE IN AFPAK FIRST, ALLIED TO RUSSIA OR NOT, BEFORE TOLERAT THE ABOVE.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-06-22 18:43|| 2011-06-22 18:43|| Front Page Top

#4 I have thought all along that Bush shifted the WOT from A'stan to Iraq because he COULD, and because he recognized A'stan as a potential quagmire that would make Viet Nam look firm (Cam Ranh Bay vs Khyber Pass for logistics???) I actually agree with Zero's move to effectively 'declare victory and leave.' But not leave entirely, of course. Maintain covert ops, hunter-killer teams, drones, and air support. Can't fight a war when the enemy wins by using human shields. I feel for Karzai - he can't publically support us or he loses 'politically' and he can't survive (literally) without us. Maybe he can move back to Baltimore.

Posted by Glenmore 2011-06-22 19:04|| 2011-06-22 19:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Part of Pak deal for OBL's head?

Posted by Iblis 2011-06-22 20:45|| 2011-06-22 20:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Can you say "Vietnamization," boys and girls? I knew you could!

Posted by Tom 2011-06-22 20:54|| 2011-06-22 20:54|| Front Page Top

#7 The A'ghan surge was never going to work, because there is for practical purposes an unlimited number of foot soldiers available to AQ and the Taliban.

The only winning strategy is assasination (dronezaps) and cutting off the money flow that pays for the foot soldiers.

Posted by phil_b 2011-06-22 21:30|| 2011-06-22 21:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Afghan is a graveyard for empires, so don't try to conquer it. The best strategy is the oldest in the book, divide and conquer. The beauty of Afghan is they hate each other. Back the side that is least hostile, making sure that it well compensated and using that area as a staging point for for special ops and drone bases Have a chat with Rumsfeld. I think he had worked it out before the idiocy of democratisation for Afghan took hold.

Posted by tipper 2011-06-22 22:38|| 2011-06-22 22:38|| Front Page Top

#9 PEOPLE'S DAILY FORUM > OBAMA'S TROOP DRAWDOWN: WHY TROOP LEVELS WON'T AFFECT THE WAR'S OUTCOME.

"Nation-building" as per Afghanistan or even PAK is currently BEYOND THE REACH [ability? intent?] of the US + POTUS BAMMER ADMIN, + is likely to remain so even after 2014.

IIUC ARTIC = the US-NATO have succeeded in physically killing a large number of Afghan = AFPAK-based Bad Boyz = MilTerrs, to include Osama Bin Laden, but has failed thus far to effec defeat the root causes of their existence, nor local perceptions of their potency, superiority vee anti-Militant, pro-Peace Govt. Authority.

Sub-IIUC, IOW THE US AFTER 2014 MAY END UP RETURNING TO AFPAK AGAIN TO FIGHT THE MILTERRS ANEW + HOPEFULLY TO FINALLY FINISH THE JOB IT LEFT PARTIALLY INCOMPLETED.

WON THE BATTLE, BUT LOST = REFUSED TO WIN? THE WAR???

and

* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > EAST AFGHANISTAN IS "AL-QAEDA + TALIBAN CENTRAL". Nuristan + Laghma, Kunar, + Nangarhar = "house widout a door" for many 00's of MilTerrs crossing back-n-forth easily/openly oer the borders between Afghanistan + Pakistan.

* DAILY TIMES.PK > BATTLEFIELD PUNJAB [politically divided] TO DECIDE FATE IN WAR ON TERROR.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-06-22 22:44|| 2011-06-22 22:44|| Front Page Top

#10 Looks like the Bammer will withdraw 33,000 US troops tote by September 2012.

* WORLD NEWS > WHITE HOUSE: ITS TIME TO BEGIN NATION-BUILDING AT HOME.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-06-23 00:37|| 2011-06-23 00:37|| Front Page Top

#11 More ...

* PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > OBAMA UP ODDS OF [US-NATO] DEFEAT IN AFGHANISTAN.

* VARIOUS NET POSTERS = POTUS Obama's announcement essentially means that AL-QAEDA + TALIBAN HAVE WON = DEFEATED THE US DESPITE THE DEATH OF OSAMA, PATH NOW CLEAR FOR MILTERR COMPLETE TAKEOVER OR DOMINATION OF AFPAK GOVTS???

* WORLD NEWS > [Business Insider] WHITE HOUSE SAYS AL-QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN NO LONGER A THREAT TO THE US.

* SAME > [post-Abbottabad captured OBL Intel]BIN LADEN WAS WORRIED ABOUT REPLACING SENIOR AL-QAEDA [Leaders], due to massive US mil pressure + belief that AQ was failing in its efforts to portray the US in a negative image to Muslims, World.

Hope POTUS BAMMER keeps in mind that various MilTerr factions have sworn to get revenge agz US = TOP US-ALLIED LEADERS, PERSONAGES for the death of Osama, ee US-led AFPAK interventions + Abbottabad raid, etc.

BAMMER ANNOUNCEMENT = MAY INDEED SIGNAL THE END OF THE US EFFORTS IN THE AFGHAN WAR, BUT NOT THE JIHAD + PRO-OSAMA REVENGE AGZ AMERICA + US LEADERS.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-06-23 01:40|| 2011-06-23 01:40|| Front Page Top

#12 The problem in Afghanistan is Afghanistan - you can't fix it. All you can do is nuke mecca next time some muslim flies planes into buildings.

But the important thing is this: the US economy is absolutely in dire straits.

The Government is broke and in debt to the eyeballs. The states are sacking workers.

I'm in Sydney and I can't turn around without falling over a 20-something US citizen who has come out here and is applying for citizenship and the right to work.

They can't get jobs at home and they are our new wave of economic migrants.

US and Irish both.

You don't have enough money now for foreign adventurism and you have save up for the coming arms race with China.

So it's good to take the troops out now. Take them out entirely. That war is costing $1 billion a day. Every day.

Osama is dead. The end.

If it happens again, we nuke mecca. Cost effective option.

We can no longer afford this war, and that's the simple maths.

Unless of course you want to live through Great Depression mk II, with 30 per cent unemployment.... which is about where real unemployment in the US is now. Forget the official figures, it's 30 per cent.

Posted by anon1 2011-06-23 01:45|| 2011-06-23 01:45|| Front Page Top

#13 There is enough Lithium in Afghanistan to meet growing global demands. Just a thought, but why not write off Karzai, ally with remnants of the Northern Alliance, and exploit mineral wealth, and back it with a scorched earth policy against encroachers? No? What if we Napalm the opium industry, so the Pashtos are too impoverished to fight?

Posted by Slomoter Wheatch9268 2011-06-23 03:08|| 2011-06-23 03:08|| Front Page Top

#14 costs too much, slomoter. That lithium will just have to stay in the ground.

Posted by anon1 2011-06-23 03:59|| 2011-06-23 03:59|| Front Page Top

#15 a narcissist like O wouldn't care about the increased casualties due to a too-fast withdrawal, as long as it benefits his re-election campaign position. Nor will he care about the beheadings, rape, blowed-up girl's schools, etc. It's all about him. Our military is a pawn to use in the furthering of himself. Behold Teh One!

Posted by Frank G 2011-06-23 08:15|| 2011-06-23 08:15|| Front Page Top

#16 Hello all, hello Frank, Obama may indeed be a narcissist. And girls schools may indeed get blown up.

But at the end of the day, it's their country. If they think the best path to happiness is being islamofascists and ensuring women never get an education then just leave them to wallow in their mistakes. Eventually they will evolve.

We just can't afford it any more

The choice I believe has now come down to whether the US wants to finance some faraway war in Afghanistan hoping to build a better society with people who just don't want to play ball, or jobs in America where young people are leaving.

I love Americans. But I don't want to see waves of your countrymen descending on my shores because they can't get jobs in the US. Economic refugees.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

I want them to come here as happy tourists, on holidays, with good jobs at home.

Posted by anon1 2011-06-23 09:37|| 2011-06-23 09:37|| Front Page Top

#17 The problem with just letting them have their little Islamofacist nation is that they don't stay there. Prior to 9/11 we were content to allow the Taliban to have their little corner of ~~hell~~ paradise.

We all know how well that worked out.

And we still don't have the means to insure that they don't come here. The TSA is a joke and [rather bad] security theater designed more to impress the natives than actually stop anything.

The problems is that Afghanistan isn't really a nation. It's more of a collection of tribes with a 'national' facade.

But this pullout has nothing to do with reality on the field and everything to do with the '12 election and OBumbles image. He wants to be the one to end a war even if it means surrendering the field. So what if a few hundred Americans or tens of thousands of Afghans die as a result - small price to pay for a bump in the polls. (According to 'bama).

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-06-23 10:00|| 2011-06-23 10:00|| Front Page Top

#18 Mr.Obama is The US President and Commander in Cheif. Even the most cynical of his critics (myself included) owe both the office and the man a certain degree of respect. Obama is not so different from every president that has confronted casualties of war. The most difficult decisions, for a US President, are the ones that directly affect the life or death of the citizenry. It is equally vulgar as it is incorrect to assume that his decision for Afghanistan troop levels was soley for political profit. With that said, throughout his life and career Mr. Obama has exhibited an extrordinary lust for self promotion. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that there are two questions in his decsion making that carry equal merit.
What is the right thing to do? and
What will personally benifit me the most?
There's a reason that President Obama couldn't advance any strategic rationale for a troop reduction. His decsion is to END the war. Not neccessarily WIN the war.

Posted by DepotGuy 2011-06-23 10:50|| 2011-06-23 10:50|| Front Page Top

#19 Eventually they will evolve.

Not so sure about that.

anon1, there was an article here on the 'Burg the other day about how the cost of the war in Afghanistan is a drop in the bucket of our national debt. We have massive entitlement programs and government giveaways that cost a whole helluva lot more. The money is not the problem.

Look at a map. With troops in Afghanistan and troops in Iraq we are in a position to attack Iran from two directions on land plus the sea and the air. I wouldn't expect Bummer to see it that way but it seems like a consideration to me...unless we go for Pakistan first.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-06-23 11:54|| 2011-06-23 11:54|| Front Page Top

#20 Couple of thoughts in no particular order:

This decision is the lesser of many evils. Under the ROE imposed by the Western political class Western forces cannot achieve anything worthwhile in Afghanistan. Let them fight or bring them home.

This is very, very bad. The West can not really afford anything less than a decisive victory here. But the actual result of the 9/11 war will be a shameful and dangerous defeat.
Vietnam was a limited war in the context of a global cold war, Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the theater of war called 'Continental United States.' Deterrence has taken a huge, perhaps fatal blow, as has the US' ability to project a security umbrella. Consequences could be ugly in the Falklands, Taiwan, Korea, Israel etc.

If the tides of war are receding we must pressure our politicians to dismantle the creeping police state. In peacetime there's no need for a TSA, DHS, Patriot Act or their equivalents in other Western nations.

The rot set in as early as October of 2001. It would be unjust to blame only Obama or the electorate of 2008 for this. This is not a defense of Obama but an indictment of the Western political class.

Posted by Blossom Darling of the Wee Folk3912 2011-06-23 13:15|| 2011-06-23 13:15|| Front Page Top

#21 Fact is we still have a WW2 mindset when it comes to this sort of thing. We stayed in Germany and Japan and rebuilt them into prosperous peaceful nations. But both were first world nations prior to war (which is why the war was so bloody).

Iraq and Afghanstan and most countries we are likely to be involved with are third world nations. There is a reason they are third world nations and we are not going to change the underlying culture enough in a decade or two to bring about change enough that we feel "comfortable" passing along control. Putting one of our 'bastards' in charge might be the only realistic option.

In Afghanistan this means supporting a non-Pashtun most likely.

Posted by rjschwarz 2011-06-23 15:01|| 2011-06-23 15:01|| Front Page Top

#22 I've kinda played around with the idea of leaving, but leaving so fast that in the power vacuum they all start fighting each other again.

Or saying they are leaving, wait until the bad guys have their triumph march into Saigon, then pop out of our holes and catch them in the open and gathered.

Or evacuate via Kuwait or Karachi.

I think most people knew this was a when not if decision. Other thoughts on that later. In the meantime, I'd like to shake the neck of the author of this article, its like being forced to hear the blatherings of a third team cheeleader talking like for sure about the dreamy second string bench riding quarterback. If the president took any of this seriously he would go the extra yard and at least pretend publically to be the leader. Instead, duffer is hitting the trail and chilling in fucking Puerto Rico. Seriously, the hallway shot is pitiful, looks like a deer in the headlights on a carpeted road. I could be on board with this, but what I have is a poll jockey who is more concerned with how I make my cheese, fine farmers for making dust, allows the department of education swat team use without consequence, wants to arm Mexican banditos but disarm innocent Americans, create expensive energy, etc. If people are seeing economic refugees from the US, its not because of this war. Billion dollars a day, obama and the d's spent enough money in the first 6 months in office on banks and big business to fund this operation for the next five and a half years.

There are a number of reasons to stay or go, but economics should not be one of them, as this expense actually pays real world dividends.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-06-23 15:04|| 2011-06-23 15:04|| Front Page Top

#23 My thought, they are going to claim victory the second the last coalition soldier leaves no matter what. The trick is to leave in a manner that they know they are full of shit when they say it; not emboldening. I think too much time has passed to connect this to the death of sammy the crab. President peace has shown he will use the military on account of increased drone zaps, navy and air strikes on libya, armed incursions, the surge. Problem is the public face; took him what 4 to 6 weeks to approve the surge, Libya looks like the person who stepped in dog shit then knowing walks around with it but pretends its not there, generic emotionless war speeches from totus, and he is physically a skinny lawyer. None of that screams Warrior to people who know nothing but emotion and war, and I don't mean the ones in theatre or were in Iraq who know better than go toe to toe even when the coalition was boxing with one foot tied to its balls. I'm talking about the next batch not wanting a go around.

Or, we size down and keep a force and airbase so to conduct operations, maybe another 5 - 10 years. A fifteen to twenty year total stay would show persistance and allow action based on intelligence in the area plus security for the continued training of the Afghan army or whatever its called. Doesn't sound like much fun, or could be where our next best go for some real world exercise.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-06-23 17:11|| 2011-06-23 17:11|| Front Page Top

#24 Or, we size down and keep a force and airbase so to conduct operations, maybe another 5 - 10 years. A fifteen to twenty year total stay would show persistance and allow action based on intelligence in the area plus security for the continued training of the Afghan army or whatever its called. Doesn't sound like much fun, or could be where our next best go for some real world exercise.

Bingo.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-06-23 18:32|| 2011-06-23 18:32|| Front Page Top

22:44 JosephMendiola
22:38 tipper
22:28 Redneck Jim
22:17 Redneck Jim
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:08 Barbara
22:07 twobyfour
22:05 Beavis
22:01 SteveS
21:50 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:44 trailing wife
21:42 trailing wife
21:40 lotp
21:37 trailing wife
21:37 Procopius2k
21:36 lotp
21:35 SteveS
21:34 JosephMendiola
21:30 phil_b
21:25 Pappy
21:17 johnbragg
21:15 texhooey
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:08 JosephMendiola