Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Actually, we interrupted a civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The government was already a joke, but the NA actually looked like the odds on winner of the conflict. Had the Taliban lost, the NA would have created a moderate government of the kind we would like now, but would have done so in a way that can't be associated with Western influence.
If we left tomorrow, Taliban from Pakistan would push West, but it's entirely probable that the former NA, now represented in part in the new Afghani government, would take up arms again and the civil war would continue. In other words, Afghanistan would be in the same place in 2010 that it was in 2001.
We've already half-assed the war, and it's clear there's no chance of us full-assing it because we don't have enough troops or the will.
|
While I agree we lack the national will to win this war, we have more than enough troops...
The problem now is in part related to the risk-averse nature of the public. They will not tolerate casualties so our soldiers are forced to take ridiculous precautions which severely limit their effectiveness.
I am not talking about the ROE or efforts to reduce civilian casualties. I feel they are a hard pill to swallow but largely necessary (though often over-interpreted to mean 'don't fight'). Rather, our soldiers are forced to patrol in large elements, heavily armored, with little flexibility. Rather than assume some risk by walking the mountains where the Taliban can be engaged, they are largely confined to the main roads where the MRAP's can drive. By not allowing reasonable body-armor restrictions soldiers simply cannot maneuver in an effective way or walk the long-distances necessary to really have a continual presence.
If you allow soldiers to take risks and shorten the bureaucracy associated with going on any mission then the OPTEMPO would increase dramatically and the soldiers who are already on the ground would be able to influence a much larger segment of the population.
On another note, the NA was not winning the war against the taliban. They had been pushed back into mountain strongholds but were not in control of any of the major cities (Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar, etc). They *may* have been able to outlast the taliban, but like now the taliban was receiving outside support.
Today the situation is looking a little better. We have been losing a lot of ground during the past couple of years, but that is (or should have been) largely predictable as most insurgencies follow a similar pattern before ultimately succeeding or failing. Many of the local areas which have been under taliban control for years are now signing security agreements and beginning to back the coalition and afghan government for the first time. By raising local (tribal) defense forces it is possible to deny sanctuary to the insurgents, which is the critical piece of the puzzle which has until now been largely ignored.
The situation in Afghanistan is difficult, but not a guaranteed loss...it depends on whether we allow the military to win.
By pulling out now we would save some money but would face negative second and third order effects which, IMHO greatly outweigh the money and lives spent on this war.