Questions of Strategy in Afghanistan
Much has been said about the time table that the Obama administration has used to determine if additional troops are needed in Afghanistan. While some may conclude that it is a show of indecision, the development of strategy in a complex situation is not only warranted, but required. When the United States and her allies first landed in Afghanistan the mission was simple; find and destroy the terrorist organization known as Al-Qaida and render it incapable of launching a terrorist attack on the United States or its allies again. For the most part, that mission has been accomplished. Al-Qaeda is splintered and most of its leadership is dead or captured. Save for a few meager transmissions, Osama Bin Laden’s current main occupation is to not get killed. So with the primary target neutralized, where do we go from here? The secondary target in our war against terrorism was the government that harbored Al-Qaida; the Taliban. The Taliban was sent into exile as we pursued the terrorists into the mountains where their few surviving members remain to this day. Now we need to determine if and when we can finally terminate military operations in the area, but first we must develop a new strategy based on current circumstances, not the ones that led us there in the first place. Just what that strategy is and a timeline to carry it out is exactly what the Obama administration is working on. There are a number of questions that must be answered first. Question 1: What is our commitment to the people of Afghanistan? If all allied forces left Afghanistan today, how long would it be before the Taliban gained control of the country again? My guess is that they would move quickly and violently. Perhaps there will be some resistance, but with the apparent corruption in the Afghanistan government, how long and how strong will that resistance be? The long term effects of this scenario would be a loss of credibility by the United States as a protector of the weak. That could open the door for China or even Iran to gain status in the region if they would move into Afghanistan and assume the role of protector. Such an event happened before when Viet Nam overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979. The aggressor became the protector. Question 2: If leaving is not an option, then how long do we (or can we) stay? Recent estimates place the cost of sending additional troops to Afghanistan at as much as one million dollars each. Such costs would justify the president examining all options before adding to the cost of an already expensive war. There must be a set goal, known in the military as a mission statement, which provides direction to military operations. Examples of such a statement; “To deny the Taliban entrance into Afghanistan,” or perhaps “To destroy the Taliban’s ability to operate in the region.” That is if the Taliban is our new primary target. Question 3: Why are we staying? Is the United States ready to commit to the people of Afghanistan for an extended period of time? The Taliban has proven surprisingly resilient and it seems unlikely that they are going away, so how long are we willing to guard the gates? Five years? Ten Years? Indefinitely? If our primary objective was to eliminate Al-Qaeda’s ability to attack us again, then the primary mission is accomplished. If we now say that we are there to keep the peace, then that is a new mission similar to our commitment to Europe after World War II. That commitment lasted 50 years. Question 4: Is there another means to win the war outside of military action? If it will cost us one million dollars per each additional soldier sent to Afghanistan, is there a better way to win the peace? Some have scoffed at the idea of paying off tribal leaders, but if a few million dollars in bribe money saves a single American soldier’s life, isn’t it worth considering? Winning a war is easier that bringing lasting peace to an unstable region. We may very well be in this for quite some time while we keep our thumb in the dike.
|
Change Location:
|
Why are we there OIL OIL
Acadian,
In your opinion, how long should it take for our president to make up his mind - really, how much longer? What date would you give for the president to make and implement a decision based on the request from his General?
Robert Capp
Bob,
I can't answer that because I don't know what information is available to him. But if he would agree to his general's request for more troops, the price tag will be high and no doubt become a key point with Republicans come next election season. I certainly don't envy his position.
Acadian,
So are you saying that President Obama should not make a decision anytime soon? That the current troops in the field should stay the course until he can make up his mind? He has had nearly ten months to figure out a strategy and implement that strategy and has had over three months since General MacChrystal requested more troops to help provide an "off ramp" to get out of Afghanistan.
No Acadian, he must find an answer sooner, rather than later. Please reply with "date" that he MUST implement a strategy. You say you don't know what information is available to him, are you suggesting that he doesn't have ALL of the available information that is possible? Do you then believe that President Obama's advisors are holding back? Can that be? I think that your answer is disingenuous, and have resolved at giving the president a pass on this. That pass comes with a price - the price is the lives of our troops. This decision should not be made based on the next election season as you suggested above, but rather on the merits of the situation alone.
Sincerely,
Robert Capp
Question 3 seems to be the key to answering all the other questions. Was the US conquest of Afghanistan an attempt to replace Russia as the dominant political force in Central Asia with the control of oil as a prominent motive, or was it to capture bin Laden?
Did we invade Afghanistan to remove our former Taliban friends from power and to replace them with a former UnoCal executive and CIA asset, Hamid Karzai? If so, is our military being used to prop up Karzai and ensure the flow of oil through UnoCal's pipelines?
Afghanistan is central to dominating the Great Game between Russia, the UK and the USA as major players. It is the key to controlling a political, geographic and economic empire joining the West with India and the Middle East. Since the close if the nineteenth century the Great Game has been about extracting and transporting oil. When war broke out in 1914 Lloyd Georges said Mesopotamia was "merely a side issue," but the opening British battle of World War One was to send 2,000 troops into Basra (Iraq) to capture the oil fields and guard the Anglo-Persian Pipeline.
'Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say, any child here, that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" (Woodrow Wilson -1919)
History repeats itself. Just follow the money.
Bob,
What I mean about information, I am referring to the military intelligence available at this time to the president. For those of us who have worked in this field, we know that the well of knowledge is deep compared to what all be the most highest ranking people have access to. Because of the sensitivity of the information, even the sources are carefully guarded.
Another piece of the puzzle that I don't have privy to are the combat units that are ready or close to ready for deployment. I don't know what types of units that they are; mechanized, light, airborne, or special forces. I don't know what types of troops that are being requested and for what purpose. Are they planning a major offensive? Are they beefing up security in areas that we control? In the 10 months that you are referring to, the president had to deal with the situation in Iraq first.
You keep pressing me about listening to generals. I had a brigade commander by the name of Colonel Eric Shinseki. He had half of a foot because of a land mine in Viet Nam and he could still dog us on brigade runs. As General Shinseki , Army Chief of Staff, he strongly advised against initiating the offensive in Iraq due to insufficient forces. Because of his opposing views to those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his replacement was announced 14 months before his retirement. I think that the president has taken everything that his generals have said under consideration and their wishes are not off the …
Acadian,
Is there more to your reply? I think you may have been cut off due to the length of your post.
Robert Capp
Sorry Bob, the last word in the sentence is "table."
Acadian, You say that the price tag would be "high" yet its about 1/20th of Obama's stimulus plan, and about 1/50th of the first year's deficit if his socialized health care gets passed on another Saturday.
Its odd that you think taking over GM, bailing out the banks, or socializing our health care system is a 20-50X better use of our money than supporting our troops.
Acadian wrote:
"The Taliban was sent into exile as we pursued the terrorists into the mountains where their few surviving members remain to this day."
Sure makes America look stupid to claim such a thing.....a few Taliban, eh?
Why would we be over there in such force to mop up "a few" stranglers scattered about from the early operations?
Are we that stupid Acadian?
Do you realize how your grossly inaccurate your statement of the enemies numbers and strength is?
and then there is this:
"....if a few million dollars in bribe money saves a single American soldier’s life, isn’t it worth considering?"--Acadian
Now if that does not represent the first step on the path to the gutting, beheading, and destruction of Western Civilization I don't know what does....Pay our enemies to like us? I don't know how anyone can even to begin to think that way.
Let the Generals fight the war.
Let the Generals have what they need to win it.
Switch to a Wartime Economy....ration everything, all money goes toward victory.
Fight to win or kiss your a$$ goodbye.
Mike,
I did not say that the Taliban were scattered, I said that the terrorists, i.e. Al-Qaida, has been scattered. The problem what we face in finding the remainder of Al-Qaida is the mountainous terrain that they are in. We have the greatest military in the world, but even they need a long time to look in every hole.
We have been using money to pacify the local leaders in Afghanistan for quite some time. We did it in Iraq as well. It started with the Bush administration and it continues today. If you think that the only honorable way is to use soldiers to win a war, you can always visit the recruiting office of the branch of your choice and sign up. I look forward to meeting you at the next bloggers meeting. You sound like an interesting person.
Bob Capp, Quit your whining, It took George Bush 7 1/2 years to do nothing, while the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan then asked for more help also. As far as I'm concerned General McCrystal should be replaced as he has been caught lying to cover up soldiers deaths from friendly fire.
glennmeadowvista,
Whining?? Who in the world do you think you are? I was asking honest questions of Acadian, and he replied honestly - that is what adults do, this was a discourse based on a point of view, not ideology. You remind me of a school yard thug. Gutless and a hyper-partisan, yet a thug nonetheless. Get over yourself. You sir, are a rock throwing thug without the guts to stand behind your words.
Sincerely,
Robert Capp
Acadian,
I misunderstood your sentence. You mentioned 2 groups in it and then singled out one that existed with a certain status and I guessed wrong thinking you meant the Taliban. I agree that al-Qaeda is scattered since taking flight into the tribal lands. The Taliban remain strong and would retake Afghanistan should we cut n' run. We would be allowing State sponsored terrorism a country to settle in, a place well knows to be the HQ for al-Qaeda, The Taliban must go and never be allowed to control the country. As mentioned, I though you were saying there were only a few Taliban....thus my response.
As to Q#4 and buying a victory I stand my ground.
The Taliban will kill anyone who gives aid to the US. Any attempts to win the tribals over with better roads, wells, sanitation, or flat out bundles of greenbacks would be a death sentence. I think you will find your money ending up in the hands of those you were trying to defeat while the head of your beneficiary ends up on a stake in the village center. These folks can't be bought, and even if they could that would not be a victory for us but a postponement to fight at another date.
I am too old for military service. But not too old for coffee.
bcapp1,
Don't let "glennmv" get under your skin.
George Bush wrecked his whole life and for him to think otherwise just leaves himself, looking in the mirror.
His half-baked partisan bile isn't worth responding to, in my opinion.
Fair enough Mike, you point is well taken. Corruption is a major obstacle for us and I agree that some money will fall into the wrong hands and in some cases be used against us. The purpose of my post was not to endorse any particular strategy, but to point out the complexity of the strategy making process. As Bob Capp has stated, patience is running thin and Americans are ready to get this war won. We have bigger fish to fry in the upcoming years.
Acadian, I would think that the President would have considered all that before he made campaign promises that according to you and many other people on both sides of the aisle cannot be kept without literally handing the country back to the Taliban and costing tens of thousands of lives. What a bad campaign promise, I would say it bordered on the irresponsible, would you agree?
Perhaps you consider party loyalty more important than American lives but we must not forget that every minute Obama waffles it results in more American casualties. You see, I have a son in the Military and I don't want him killed simply because Obama can't make up his mind as to what faction he's willing to upset. Right now he has shown how little he cares about our troops, I don't care how many photo ops at Dover AFB he takes that's just that, a photo op, no substance whatsoever.
It's not Obama's fault. We elected him to be our President. We elected a person whose most common vote on issues was "Present". Obama has the Meyers-Briggs personality type that never has enough information to make a decision. He is deathly afraid of making a "wrong" decision and then looking bad. Looking good is his main concern. At least Kerry voted "No" before he voted "Yes" or vice versa.
loomisresident, a presidential candidate does not have access to the upper levels of military intelligence. One of the first things that happened to president elect Obama, as with all president elects is a high level security briefing.
I am an army veteran with 8 years of service in combat arms (infantry) and have served on a battalion level S2 staff. I did not write this with a political slant. I was using my past experiences to give my perspective of the situation. There are a host of intelligence gathering methods in addition to aerial surveillance. Real time intelligence from sources on the ground (i.e. operatives) are providing information on the disposition of the enemy that is very key to the development of a new strategy, which is what we need.
My oldest son has followed in his father's footsteps and is soon to graduate from the basic infantry course at Fort Benning and is slated for airborne school and RIP (Ranger Indoctrination Program). So I have an interest in a resolution as well.
JonGreen, your comment is too juvenile to comment on.
Robert, You are really getting a bad attitude lately. I said quit your whining and you go off like an atomic bomb. You continue to snivel about Obama and Afghanistan but you didn't complain when Bush was doing it. You love to throw out the bait lately just so you can go on the attack. What you need is some Prozac and blood pressure pills to mellow out. PS watch out for falling rocks. Mike Gerber could use some Prozac and a tinfoil hat as well. Have a nice day.
Is there some other reason he can't make a decision. I too went through Infantry Officer's school at Fort Benning (1964) and agree that the boots on the ground have the best intelligence. The big boot on the ground has asked for 40,000 more troops. I watched the dithering politcians donk up the Vietnam War. Obama has had a year to formulate a strategy.
PS: tell your son to watch out for the lightning at Benning. It regularly kills people there. There is also poison ivy that Californians don't have any experience with. Best of luck with his training.
glennmeadowvista,
Are you a doctor? You're making a diagnosis and prescribing medications now? I did complain about President Bush's mistakes in the middle east, you just weren't listening. Unlike you, I'm not a partisan hack that follows the party line blindly. You have a bad attitude and when someone says something you don't like, you call them names and throw rocks at them, very mature of you. How about adding something constructive to the discussion? In other words, move the dialog along, with maturity, not hubris.
Sincerely,
Robert Capp
Acadian, I am also a former member of the Armed Forces, a draftee. I accept that candidates do not have full access to all the intel that a sitting president has. However, can we turn the clock back to 2001, September 11 to be exact. Then President Bush got ripped for not foreseeing the murderous attack on our soil. We all know that the departing Clinton Administration staffers and God know who else changed keyboard keys and other assorted pranks, was omitting intel also in their agenda against the incoming Chief Executive. It is hard not to see politics in these posts because they are fully politicized. If that was not your intent then please accept my apology.
Oops, sent it too fast. Let's not forget that once a President is elected he has all the right to the same information as the departing President does, Mr. Obama then, now President Obama continued to state that he would end both wars ASAP upon becoming a standing President.
I know what you mean about the lightning Jon, One such storm caught my in the middle of the airborne school LZ with my steel pot on. I just made a textbook rear PLF when a blackhat ran up screaming for me to take my helmet off. I still had about a mile to run to the bleachers, but didn't make it before I got soaked. I grew up in the south and a miss the lightning storms. He just went on a week-long FTX with a hurricane in the Gulf. I'm expecting his phone call to see how he liked being wet for a week. Some guys have all the fun.
loomisresident, if I recall, one of the problems that came out of the review of 9/11 was that the intelligence community had poor coordination and cooperation. Whoever says that it was President Bush's fault is incorrect. We were all caught napping, just like we were on December 7, 1941.
There is an old conspiracy theory that FDR knew the attack was coming and needed it to get America to enter the war.
It was a theory that was proved to be fiction. It had to do with our ability to decipher the Japanese code, but the information wasn't detailed enough to say that the president knew when and where the attack would occur.