| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| Get Nasty or Go Home | |
| 2009-10-16 | |
| By Michael Scheuer. Take with a grain of salt. Rather than popular support for the Taliban being based on intimidation and money, what we are seeing in Afghanistan is popular opinion catching up with Islamist determination. Until roughly late 2006, the war against the U.S.-NATO coalition was largely fought by the Taliban, other Islamists groups like that led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and al Qaeda. Since then, however, the Islamists have been joined by Afghans who simply do not want Muslim Afghanistan occupied by all sorts of infidels from all sorts of Christian and polytheist countries. In short, an Islamist insurgency has evolved into an Islamist-nationalist freedom struggle not unlike that which beat the Red Army. The best way to see the growth of the Afghan enemy facing the United States and NATO is to track the proliferating number of insurgent attacks in the heretofore quiet and supposedly "friendly" arc of provinces from Herat in the west clockwise to Badakhshan in the far northeast. . . . . . . [L]et us hope . . . that Washington's focus is refixed on the hard but simple Afghan choice it faces: Because the U.S.-NATO occupation powers the Afghan insurgency and international Muslim support for it, we must either destroy it root and branch or leave. . . . . [O]nly the all-out use of large, conventional U.S. military forces can be expected to have a shot at winning in Afghanistan. Since 1996, the United States has definitively proven that clandestine operations, covert action, Special Forces actions, and aerial drone attacks cannot defeat al Qaeda. It has likewise proven beyond doubt that nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. That said, military victory would require 400,000 to 500,000 additional troops, the wide use of land mines (even if Princess Diana spins in her grave), and the killing of the enemy and its civilian supporters in the numbers needed to make them admit the game is not worth the candle. This clearly is not a viable option. . . .
| |
| Posted by:Maggie Ebbuter2991 |
| #9 The problem? Afghanistan* is a region NOT a country. Deal at a smaller level. *North Pakistan too. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-10-16 20:22 |
| #8 why not pick a tribal chieftain or warlord, and enable him to be the strongman that goes and whacks the mooks for us? Agree, abu do you love and this appears to be McChrystal's approach as well. And yes Karzi needs his arse capped and the sooner the better and make sure they take out his brother with him. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-10-16 20:04 |
| #7 Immediately following our withdrawal, the Taliban would roll over Afghanistan, I think, sponsored and they are by both the Pakistan army, via the ISI, and Gulf Arab charity. As soon as the Taliban regained control they would invite their little friends like Lashkar e Taiba and Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (or whatever their exact names are, I struggle to remember the details) to set up training camps -- for a suitable consideration, of course -- where people like that lovely Afghan lad from Denver can learn all sorts of useful skills which they will then excitedly apply. So important, now things have hotted up in Pakistan, the army so annoyed that the Punjabi Taliban keep blowing up in their faces and all. And it's the TTP, Lashkar e Taiba and all who are running the attacks against Britain. So it goes back to, do we fight them over there or at home? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-10-16 20:04 |
| #6 *cough* Dostum *sough* |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-10-16 19:59 |
| #5 why not pick a tribal chieftain or warlord, and enable him to be the strongman that goes and whacks the mooks for us? the deal upfront is we get hit, you lose $$$. then he takes it personal when a Taliban shows up and causes trouble, it costs him both face and cash. worst mistake ever was enabling hamid kharzi (sp?). the pashtun sob has been quietly enabling the Taliban and triangulating for his own gain since day one. better would have been to back the northern alliance and let the pashtuns clean house to get to play ball. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2009-10-16 18:26 |
| #4 change Islam so that it does not generate them Rotsa Ruck on that, it would be a job bigger than nation-building by an order of magnitude. Changing Islam is a job for Muslims. The Taliban served as a host to al-Qaeda. As far as I'm concerned, the most succinct way to refer to the Taliban is al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Don't mince words or concepts. I don't see solution for the breeding-grounds of the Taliban except for the region to continue to send out suicide bombers & assorted murderers, then to be hit with reprisals from other countries until one side or the other is exhausted. Electorates of various countries injured by the Taliban will not stand for long-term colonization (which seems to be the only real solution) unless they are so badly injured they change their collective minds. Political leadership might mobilize opinion & support before something worse than 9/11, but there's no sign of that kind of leadership anywhere in the West. The world economy may be so badly damaged by expanding al-Qaeda-bred chaos in central & southwestern Asia that Afghanistan & Pakistan may drop off the world map & collapse into massive starvation. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-10-16 14:58 |
| #3 Do we really care whether the mooks who attack our cities come from Afghanistan as opposed to Somalia or Yemen? These strategies amount to whack-a-mook, country by country. I think our choices are live with an Islam that generates coconuts like the Taliban and al-Q or change Islam so that it does not generate them. |
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Cloter6973 2009-10-16 14:18 |
| #2 Fair enough Maggie, and there are some here who would agree in whole or in part to your comment. The Taliban served as a host to al-Qaeda. By and large the Taliban leadership agrees with and thinks the same way that Binny does. They share the same ideas even if their cultures are some different (Arab versus Pashtun). The Taliban were austere, murderous thugs before they met al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda gave them wider horizons for their thuggery. With that happy thought in mind, we can't allow the Taliban to return to power. We saw what happened the first time they seized about 90% of Afghanistan. We saw how they allowed -- hell, aided and abetted -- the development of al-Qaeda as a major terrorist and quasi-state power. If the Taliban seized the country again, the same things would happen, and al-Qaeda, or terrorists like them, would find respite and refuge. How you go about preventing that is open to some debate. I have some misgivings about simply expanding the number of American troops there. I'm not sure we can sustain a big footprint (logistically as well as politically). I'm getting to understand a little about COIN, clear and hold, etc., but I'm not sure it works in Afghanistan -- the country is so backwards, so tribal, and so different from what we've done before (Iraq, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc) that I'm not sure the past examples work. It might be better to have a small footprint operation -- lots of Special Forces who train and assist those Afghans who want a country for themselves and who are willing to keep the terrorists out. That might be the best we can hope for over the next decade. We could sustain that. I agree -- don't do it halfway. Pick the right strategy and commit to it completely. Educate the American people as to why it's the right strategy and why we have to prevail. I'm just not sure "Do it Big and Nasty" is the right strategy; I'm more in favor of "Do it Small and Nasty". |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-10-16 13:38 |
| #1 What I'd like to know is the following. What evidence exists that this is a popular uprising? If it is a popular uprising, how widespread is it? Scheuer did not say much on that other than "the proliferating number of insurgent attacks in the heretofore quiet and supposedly 'friendly' arc of provinces from Herat in the west clockwise to Badakhshan in the far northeast." A story came across last week that American troops are told by Afghan villagers that there are no Taliban around, and the next minute they are shot at. Afghanistan is described as "a land of a thousand alamos." To me that sounds like the enemy has freedom of action, while we can't move or maneuver except by helicopter. While this may largely be because of the terrain and lack of modern roads, that does not change the difficulty of the situation. Afghanistan is important to national security because it is where terrorists have launched attacks, and Afghanistan is next door to Pakistan and Iran. But is Afghanistan critical to US national security? I am not completely convinced that we need to commit the lives of our men and hundreds of billions of dollars for the sake of a godforsaken landlocked country that lists poppy fields as its greatest asset. While Scheuer is no doubt wrong on many details, I would still probably side with him on "Get Nasty or Go Home." Do it big and win, or just forget it, and get out. Don't try to do it halfways. |
| Posted by: Maggie Ebbuter2991 2009-10-16 13:21 |