Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Slims · 07-10-2010, 12:39 PM

Why are we a party to a civil war? We aren't. The Taliban do not have a functioning government, though they do have a 'shadow government' that is the hallmark of modern insurgencies. The Afghan Government is weak, but in key areas functional. It has not been able to spread it's influence to the most rural and hostile areas of the country yet, but neither were we in the early days of the US.

If you mean why are we involved in a war there it is simple: State sponsored terrorism lead to Sept. 11'th. So we toppled the Afghan government and proceeded to attempt to crush Al-Qaeda. We then stayed because our departure would mark the beginning of a 'dying time' for the country as the remaining soviet infrastructure had been crushed, markets and commerce was in dissarray and the people had little means with which to rebuild the country. Basically, we were being nice...If we had smashed the Taliban and left the country in ruins with the majority of it's people starving you would be screaming bloody murder.

Coincidentally, far fewer Afghans are dying due to violence now than under the taliban regime. Additionally the standard of living is up across the country. How are we doing wrong here?

How about these clear objectives:

Clean up the mess we made by assuring the creation of a stable, somewhat moderate government which does not tolerate extremism or the type of 'terrorist' attacks by nonstate actors we have seen against the United States many times and nearly daily in nations such as Pakistan.

Create an ally in South Asia which can influence Iran, Pakistan and China.

With Pakistan: If we manage to stabilize Afghanistan the FATA will likely be (eventually) stabilized by Pakistan, eliminating the largest, most dangerous area of lawlessness and radicalism left in the world....There are other shitholes but the people in this one have the ability and will to reach out and blow people up around the world. Right now FATA based INS can play both sides (literally) by moving across the porous border at will to escape whatever half-assed operation a country is launching against them. If Afghanistan becomes stable it will largely seal the border with PK to prevent free INS movement. It will trap FATA based groups in PK where they will cause trouble, forcing PK to deal with.

With Iran: Afghanistan will continue to remain a focal point for Iran which will at least serve as a distraction and at best a moderating influence. Not directly as Afghanistan is hardly a shining example of how to be, but rather because playing nice with their neighbors will eventually become more profitable than importing modern weapons to the Taliban.

China: China is looking at a serious resource shortage in the coming years and interaction with Afghanistan could prove very beneficial to both nations. Because we will likely have a lot of influence for some time there are a lot of possibilities for us as well.

And even if you disagree with everything I wrote above, what about the people of Afghanistan who have committed their lives to creating the government and freedom we have promised them? Why would a peace-lover express a desire to abandon the tens of thousands of Afghans who stood up and worked with us to create a more moderate government? If we leave they will be killed. Some may survive if the militias rise again and warlords are able to protect certain areas from the Taliban, but most won't. I work with dozens of people who have bounties on their heads because they are making progress...and they continue to work towards a peaceful Afghanistan. How can you advocate yanking that out from underneath them?

As far as military strategy: Our senior military leaders serve at the pleasure of the president and are political appointees. When they express frustration at the lack of support they are receiving they are fired (i.e. McChrystal). It is evident to every soldier in this country that political necessity drives much of the decision making process here....if we anger the public or political leaders we will be unable to proceed with our mission and will fail here in Afghanistan. So we proceed with our hands behind our backs...still forward but less effectively than we are capable of.

But I am impressed how you managed to tie in my previous post about progress being made and the war being winnable with Vietnam (which as also winnable, by the way save for politics), right wing politics (but they are still politicians and equally responsible for meddling), convervativism, the 'war on terror', a captive press held by the military war-machine and multiple references to coherence or the lack therof. What?

Dude, you write some of the most politically loaded posts I have ever seen. When I attempt (poorly perhaps) to post my opinions which are based on first hand experience you insert political ideology where there is none.

If you really don't think the war is politically driven then the vast majority of your posts on the subject are contradictory. The military is an entity which needs to be pointed in a direction, given some right and left limits (time, budget, ROE, etc) and then left to accomplish it's task. I have personally seen a lot of meddling in the way we do business here and it has always had a negative impact on my ability to conduct my mission.

Also, my mission statement here is simple (though I am going to paraphrase a little bit): "XXX conducts Combat Foreign Internal defense in XXX (province) to stabilize the region and increase the legitimacy of the Afghan Government. There is no incoherence in that message. The mission statements grow more broad as you move up the ladder, but are still quite clear. The military at every level has a clear objective and is working towards that goal. It is at the political level where incoherence takes hold and I was not arguing against that fact.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Oh, I forgot to mention: The vast majority of the Insurgents we have killed this rotation have been foreign fighters: Punjabs, Turks, Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs. We are night fighting the 'local people' but rather foreign ideologues who are attempting to forcibly subvert the local peoples.

Two days ago I watched an IED blow up a family of five out collecting firewood. The husband, wife, grandmother and baby were dismembered. We were able to save a young boy but he was badly hurt. I have since received several reports about the local Insurgents being congratulated on a successful attack.

We were recently given a night-letter where the taliban have ordered all residents in a large portion of our province to 'leave' because they are not supporting the taliban enough. They have warned that 'bad things will happen to those who stay.'

We have seen a dramatic increase in INS violence against civilians recently. I have had to deal with the aftermath of several rocket and mortar attacks against villages (rather than our base). The mullah of a local village was kidnapped, tortured, dismembered and put on display by the taliban for preaching 'moderate' viewpoints....He didn't even like us, he just didn't want his children to grow up poor and ignorant.

The locals in our village have started to rise against the taliban coming across the border and have recently routed several fighters who were attempting to assassinate a tribal elder.

The Taliban have once again adopted a strategy of outright coercion and force to get their way. They are not at all concerned about what the Afghan people want...The taliban want a destabilized, ignorant, poor base from which they can once again rise to power. They are willing to do anything to get it, and the locals are beginning to realize they have to fight if they don't want the taliban regime to come back.

It really seems to me like I am in both the just and the winning columns here....Why would you advocate leaving these people to fend for themselves?

07-10-2010, 12:39 PM	#64 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Why are we a party to a civil war? We aren't. The Taliban do not have a functioning government, though they do have a 'shadow government' that is the hallmark of modern insurgencies. The Afghan Government is weak, but in key areas functional. It has not been able to spread it's influence to the most rural and hostile areas of the country yet, but neither were we in the early days of the US. If you mean why are we involved in a war there it is simple: State sponsored terrorism lead to Sept. 11'th. So we toppled the Afghan government and proceeded to attempt to crush Al-Qaeda. We then stayed because our departure would mark the beginning of a 'dying time' for the country as the remaining soviet infrastructure had been crushed, markets and commerce was in dissarray and the people had little means with which to rebuild the country. Basically, we were being nice...If we had smashed the Taliban and left the country in ruins with the majority of it's people starving you would be screaming bloody murder. Coincidentally, far fewer Afghans are dying due to violence now than under the taliban regime. Additionally the standard of living is up across the country. How are we doing wrong here? How about these clear objectives: Clean up the mess we made by assuring the creation of a stable, somewhat moderate government which does not tolerate extremism or the type of 'terrorist' attacks by nonstate actors we have seen against the United States many times and nearly daily in nations such as Pakistan. Create an ally in South Asia which can influence Iran, Pakistan and China. With Pakistan: If we manage to stabilize Afghanistan the FATA will likely be (eventually) stabilized by Pakistan, eliminating the largest, most dangerous area of lawlessness and radicalism left in the world....There are other shitholes but the people in this one have the ability and will to reach out and blow people up around the world. Right now FATA based INS can play both sides (literally) by moving across the porous border at will to escape whatever half-assed operation a country is launching against them. If Afghanistan becomes stable it will largely seal the border with PK to prevent free INS movement. It will trap FATA based groups in PK where they will cause trouble, forcing PK to deal with. With Iran: Afghanistan will continue to remain a focal point for Iran which will at least serve as a distraction and at best a moderating influence. Not directly as Afghanistan is hardly a shining example of how to be, but rather because playing nice with their neighbors will eventually become more profitable than importing modern weapons to the Taliban. China: China is looking at a serious resource shortage in the coming years and interaction with Afghanistan could prove very beneficial to both nations. Because we will likely have a lot of influence for some time there are a lot of possibilities for us as well. And even if you disagree with everything I wrote above, what about the people of Afghanistan who have committed their lives to creating the government and freedom we have promised them? Why would a peace-lover express a desire to abandon the tens of thousands of Afghans who stood up and worked with us to create a more moderate government? If we leave they will be killed. Some may survive if the militias rise again and warlords are able to protect certain areas from the Taliban, but most won't. I work with dozens of people who have bounties on their heads because they are making progress...and they continue to work towards a peaceful Afghanistan. How can you advocate yanking that out from underneath them? As far as military strategy: Our senior military leaders serve at the pleasure of the president and are political appointees. When they express frustration at the lack of support they are receiving they are fired (i.e. McChrystal). It is evident to every soldier in this country that political necessity drives much of the decision making process here....if we anger the public or political leaders we will be unable to proceed with our mission and will fail here in Afghanistan. So we proceed with our hands behind our backs...still forward but less effectively than we are capable of. But I am impressed how you managed to tie in my previous post about progress being made and the war being winnable with Vietnam (which as also winnable, by the way save for politics), right wing politics (but they are still politicians and equally responsible for meddling), convervativism, the 'war on terror', a captive press held by the military war-machine and multiple references to coherence or the lack therof. What? Dude, you write some of the most politically loaded posts I have ever seen. When I attempt (poorly perhaps) to post my opinions which are based on first hand experience you insert political ideology where there is none. If you really don't think the war is politically driven then the vast majority of your posts on the subject are contradictory. The military is an entity which needs to be pointed in a direction, given some right and left limits (time, budget, ROE, etc) and then left to accomplish it's task. I have personally seen a lot of meddling in the way we do business here and it has always had a negative impact on my ability to conduct my mission. Also, my mission statement here is simple (though I am going to paraphrase a little bit): "XXX conducts Combat Foreign Internal defense in XXX (province) to stabilize the region and increase the legitimacy of the Afghan Government. There is no incoherence in that message. The mission statements grow more broad as you move up the ladder, but are still quite clear. The military at every level has a clear objective and is working towards that goal. It is at the political level where incoherence takes hold and I was not arguing against that fact. ---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ---------- Oh, I forgot to mention: The vast majority of the Insurgents we have killed this rotation have been foreign fighters: Punjabs, Turks, Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs. We are night fighting the 'local people' but rather foreign ideologues who are attempting to forcibly subvert the local peoples. Two days ago I watched an IED blow up a family of five out collecting firewood. The husband, wife, grandmother and baby were dismembered. We were able to save a young boy but he was badly hurt. I have since received several reports about the local Insurgents being congratulated on a successful attack. We were recently given a night-letter where the taliban have ordered all residents in a large portion of our province to 'leave' because they are not supporting the taliban enough. They have warned that 'bad things will happen to those who stay.' We have seen a dramatic increase in INS violence against civilians recently. I have had to deal with the aftermath of several rocket and mortar attacks against villages (rather than our base). The mullah of a local village was kidnapped, tortured, dismembered and put on display by the taliban for preaching 'moderate' viewpoints....He didn't even like us, he just didn't want his children to grow up poor and ignorant. The locals in our village have started to rise against the taliban coming across the border and have recently routed several fighters who were attempting to assassinate a tribal elder. The Taliban have once again adopted a strategy of outright coercion and force to get their way. They are not at all concerned about what the Afghan people want...The taliban want a destabilized, ignorant, poor base from which they can once again rise to power. They are willing to do anything to get it, and the locals are beginning to realize they have to fight if they don't want the taliban regime to come back. It really seems to me like I am in both the just and the winning columns here....Why would you advocate leaving these people to fend for themselves? __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 07-10-2010 at 12:41 PM..