aceventura3

Here we go again.

My first question was a simple question that begged to be asked given the conclusion you presented:

You never clearly answered the question and now you suggest that my further attempts at clarification are absurd!

In my world I was always told no question is a bad question. I don't get your attitude regarding questions.

O.k., that as a given - isn't it clear in your mind what you would do and why? If it is clear to you why do we make Obama's motives so convoluted? Or, are you telling me that, given your view, you would be "locked" into Bush's rhetoric, Bush's expressed or implied goals, Bush's folly????? The simplicity of my questions relative to the manner in which some avoid answering them makes me think that some don't like the conclusions honest answers would lead them to.


Elections have consequences and as an avid Bush supporter I understood that and I am willing to live with the consequences. However, and this is big, just because I understand and I am willing to live with the consequences does not mean I stop fighting for what I believe in. "Bush people" are problematic only to the degree that "Obama people" are weak. This is not about machismo it is realistic observation. Obama is in control, he has the power, "Bush people" do not have any power nor control - but if we can bend Obama to our will with no control and no power, isn't that a reflection on Obama??? Again, I don't understand why so much focus is being place on Bush?!?

You could not be more wrong. The first thing that came to mind regarding real leadership in defiance was Gandhi:

Gandhi Salt March: 1930


Call it "fairytale" if you want, but a person doing what is courageous by stepping outside of his or her "context" in spite of the consequences is honorable in my view and something that defines leadership.


You lost me here. On one hand it seems you argue the opposite view. Then this comes after a response. So I am finding it difficult to follow you with this last comment.

And, just from my point of view if something is self evident, it does not need to be pointed out, I always view this kind of comment as wasteful unless the motive is to be condescending - which is my assumption here - and the reason I generally get all pissy , if you ever want to avoid this, the pattern is "self evident". Yes, I know what I did and I know why!

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Ownership. An excerpt from Rolling Stone McChrystal interview.

Excerpts From Rolling Stone’s McChrystal Profile - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

We have a President in over his head. Many of the posts in this thread illustrated that. Obama still has not taken ownership of the war and the spin on the McChrystal interview will be that Obama is a victim of an insubordinate general. Will Obama have the will to fire McChrystal? Why didn't Obmam know about McChrystals issues?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

FuglyStick

Damn skippy.

Cimarron29414

Technically, McCrystal resigned and Obama accepted without hesitation.

In my opinion, McCrystal should not be doing interviews with entertainment magazines during wartime. Every engagement with the media needs to have the unity of message necessary for a cohesive chain of command. This is what gives the grunts the confidence they need in their leadership - that they aren't wasting their time or lives for a bunch of knuckleheads.

The contents of this article showed a disturbing lack of discipline. Even though I feel everything his staff said is true and Obama doesn't have a clue how to be commander-in-chief, that's what they signed up for. For them to undermine their commander-and-chief in public is wrong.

Having said that, McCrystal will now write a tell-all book, make millions, and be a hero to Republicans for further exposing the administration's flawed foreign policy.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

No doubt McChrystal has to take responsibility for what happened, but if anyone spends any time with a group of guys once their guard is let down they are going to joke and make comments about their superiors. I think most reporters understand this, I wonder if the folks at Rolling Stone did? Also, McChrystal used the media in the past to send a message to the Obama administration, he may have used the media here to do the same. There is a renewed interest in the war and perhaps we should take another look at our military goals and objectives - which have never been clear to me.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Chicory

I believe Obama's greatest problem with his Afghanistan policy has been his published, well discussed, time line for pulling troops out of the country. Good to see the President back track a little on this idea the last couple days, but still troubling.

Walt

McCrystal is a Democrat.

__________________
Calmer than you are...

Cimarron29414

Exactly. Anyone willing to trash Obama will be a hero, especially if they are shedding their party allegiance and "doing the right thing." Just like Liebermann was when he opposed the Democrats.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

Well, we have until July 1, 2011, before Canadian troops end combat operations and begin returning home.

I imagine we aren't the only ones who no longer have appetite for this, ten years into it....

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

here's a link to the whole rolling stone article:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Totally confused on what the July 1, 2011 date means, does anyone have a handle on it. I don't know what to make of all the conflicting messages.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Canada Day 2011 will mark the end of Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan. Troop withdrawals will commence from that date until the end of the year, by which time all combat troops will return home.

It's still uncertain what other roles the Canadian armed forces will play. It's entirely possible that there will still be support roles.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

kutulu

Unfuckingbelievable

Steele Says We Shouldn't Be In Afghanistan; Calls It Obama's War Of Choice | TPMDC

aceventura3

I don't like Steele and won't try to defend his words. However, I recall Obama saying Afghanistan was the correct war and that Bush lost focus on it. Obama escalated the war rather than bring troop homes. Obama's people are setting the strategy. Obama studied the issues in great detail before approving the surge. Obama set a deadline date that is not really a deadline. Obama severely criticized McCain for comments about long-term open ended military commitments, and this helped him win but he is acting no different than McCain would have. US casualties are peaking from month to month - so if Obama doesn't own this war at this point, then you are suggesting he will never have any accountability for the war.

Steele's real problem is that he is kinda weaselly like most politicians in D.C.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

President Obama has had plenty of opportunities to end or scale back the war in Afghanistan and the war is unpopular. Steele was right.

Now let's go watch some lesbian bondage. James Bondage.

kutulu

I'd rather not be in Afghanistan but the fact is that we started a war over there and toppled the government. Are we supposed to half-ass our way through the war and then just take off?

aceventura3

Unlike traditional military actions, in Afghanistan we can not even identify the enemy. The surge strategy will not work in Afghanistan. Nation building will not work in Afghanistan. I would primarily use small scale covert or military ops, strategically when needed - and I would do it forever if needed - no different than what I do to protect my home from pests. However, I would stay open to diplomatic solutions if a non-corrupt government got in power and actually got serious.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

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.

kutulu

You both made pretty convincing arguments. I've been watching Rachael Maddow's show live from Afghanistan this week and the whole time you just wonder how anything we are doing is sustainable when we leave. I'm not up for an open-ended occupation so I'm fine with the idea of giving it a year and GTFO.

scout

I found this on another forum I visit and I thought it brings a whole different perspective to Afghanistan. I'm to lazy to google for the link but I'm sure it's out there.




Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

roachboy

i can't say that i had a space in my mind that was waiting to find out what the neo-fascist take on mc-chyrstal and/or afghanistan was, but now i know it.

and it's the classical thing: democracy is bad because it involves and endless debate, endless abstractions---in the cretin-speak of the article above, that is coded as "cluelessness"---what's required is the manly man Action of a Leader, someone who is a kind of combo-platter of Steely-Eyed Manly Man stuff and a technocrat, so a general really, someone who believes in the mission of national purification on military grounds and the greater Destiny of the volk and who i knows how to play the bureaucratic game while remaining all Steely-Eyed Manly Man about things. so what matters in this neo-fascist fantasyland, is the Appearance of Control. and stuff like Resolve, which is a nice word.

so the neo-fascist take of mc-chyrstal's pathetic rolling stone piece and on the afghan war more generally is a repellent exercise in nostalgia for the good-old-days of the bush administration.

and who is peter heck?

The Peter Heck Show - FRIDAY

an ultra-right wing christian radio talking head.

he appears to publish his columns on his webspace and they circulate through the network of reactionary blogs and messageboards. the dateline is a nice touch. it gives the impression that the source might be other than a webspace maintained by some neo-fascist christian fundamentalist.

well, there is a paper that publishes his columns. it brings you "news from a christian perspective." the about page is kinda interesting:

OneNewsNow.com - Your News Right Now

funny stuff.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Slims

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.

__________________
"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

roachboy

fill me in again on why exactly the united states is party in a civil war in afghanistan?
how exactly is "the public" getting blamed for the incoherence of the situation (from a vertical military viewpoint, from a mission viewpoint that's strictly military, the scenario in afghanistan makes little sense)? the press is pooled and has been. the military has impressive abilities to package and market war. and they do it continually. this "risk adverse public" business sounds like a hangover from the conservative mythology about vietnam (and so yet another version of the old "stabbed in the back" theory dear to problematically rightwing elements in all kinds of militaries...)

if the objective is a military defeat of the taliban...wait: is that the objective? since when? this returns to the initial question.

i think it was little more than a bone thrown to the right that obama argued afghanistan was a coherent action. it's seemed pretty clear to me that his administration has no independent vision of either why the bush people got the united states involved in the first place (the urge to "do something" after 9/11/2001) nor of objectives nor of strategy. all it seems to have done is allow obama to campaign as if this absurdity of the "war on terror" made sense and to co-opt a bit of conservativespeak at the same time.

if there's no clear idea of objective then there's no winning there's no losing there's just treading water for its own sake.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Slims

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

roachboy

slims...that's a peculiar delegitimation move you decide to make. it hardly seems necessary. but whatever.
i expect that the rhetoric of "i-am-here" vs. "you-are-political" was to nuke anything i might say.


on the other hand, i forget that you're there. when i read your posts i assume you were there but are sitting around at home amusing yourself on a messageboard. so first of all, your perspective is interesting and keep writing it here if you're so inclined. disagreements are just that.

but mostly to you and your comrades: be safe.


that said:


there's no doubt gap between the types of information that we respectively have access to. it's not real clear to me what kind of information you've got about the karzai government and the extent to which it is not in control of much of anything outside of kabul. but of course things change...the extent to which (from what i understand anyway) political legitimacy is mostly about protection and other basic--like real basic---service delivery type arrangements---and the karzai government can't deliver them. the us et al is--from what i can put together---seen simultaneously as allies of karzai, so a military arm of a particular faction in a fight against another faction...like a party within a civil war....and as an outside invasion force, which hands the opposition to kabul (the taliban) an easy trope to use to mobilize people. basic service delivery doesn't happen or is erratic...foreign invader....machiavelli saw this as a no-win situation. read the prince if you haven't.

all this and i don't doubt--at all--that the taliban are not swell guys.

and i do not doubt--at all---that in some alternate universe you and everyone else there would rather be doing things another way. but you're boxed in. you're boxed in by the situation you're in.

(the question then becomes what are we doing there? how thought out was it, getting involved there? i don't think it was thought out at all (preponderance of evidence: remember the wolfowitz "plan" for iraq?))



it's good that in some places for some periods things seems better. i assume that things on the ground move around all the time and that statements from people who read while sitting in a chair thousands of miles away seem quite removed from what is for you the reality of afghanistan.

the stories i know more more slowly. they're more general. they're products of the fog of war too. but it's not that difficult to see the basic political incoherence on this side that gets translated again and again into questions of what the us should do there, what the us is doing there and (most important to my mind) what is the direction to go in order to get out of there.


in your posts is this sense that you see the military as having some alternate possible mission that they can't do (hands tied behind the back and all that) that has objectives which are clear to you but not to people who have the power to create strategy (and still less to those of us who sit in chairs reading)...but that will never happen. and so long as that won't happen, the situation is such that the us cannot leave. so the logic is that this is an endless war.

the only people who win in that kind of situation are the people selling hardware and supplies. so contractors. no-one else. not you, not anyone who's actually there fighting, not the civilians around you, not the government of afghanistan such as it is...no-one.

and that's alarming.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

scout

Whatever my friend. Just saying it does make some sense. Why else would a 4 Star general who's whole life is nothing but the US Army do something so stupid.

I don't read anything much left of far left so fill me in on what the far far lefts take on things are?

Thanks!

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

Willravel

IIRC the Soviet Union had well over 120,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and they still lost. Even with the 30,000 troops President Obama is sending, we'll still only have about 98,000 troops and don't forget that we're also facing enemies in Pakistan. I respect the US military's ability to get things done (to a point), but we'd need more than 120,000 troops to see a likely victory.
They had moved out of the mountains, they weren't being pushed back into them. Like the Taliban, the NA had outside help (word is, from the US).
I'm afraid I don't see how anything that happens in Afghanistan could end up costing the US that kind of money considering that once the US pulls out the Taliban will have to face the much stronger Afghanistan government we've left in place. As I said, there would be civil war, tying up the Taliban for a very long time.

Slims

Roachboy: I was not trying to squash discourse, but rather get you to back off from loading my words. I obviously have my opinions, but I was trying hard to keep them apolitical and discuss based on the merits (or lack therof) of my post. Personally I feel the problem is systemic and not tied to a particular party....right wing has nothing to do with it as they prosecuted the war in much the same fashion.

With regard to your comments:
The information gap is huge beyond all reason. The media very rarely reports the boing, dull stories about small steps forward and chooses instead to focus on spectacular operations, big attacks and large failures. What gets lost in the noise is the near 100% reinvention of strategy here. Most soldiers only feel frustrated by the bureaucracy and have not yet seen the sea change that is coming.

You don't have to take me at my word for the country as a whole but please believe this: In my region local stabilization efforts have been paying huge dividends. Most of the army is struggling to adapt to the flexible environment that is a counter-insurgency....but the book on how such actions are to be conducted is being completely re-written in order to fully incorporate the local population and simply deny sanctuary (I keep mentioning that in my posts because it is absolutely critical to understand) to the insurgents. In areas where that occurs, it becomes a simple reconstruction and mentoring issue as there will be very little fighting left to do.

I understand how weak and corrupt the Karzai government is. It is something we have to deal with every day. But, they are in control of the major population centers and the population in those centers is mostly supportive of the Afghan Government (if not Karzai). We are also working both ends to tie the rural areas loosely to the government. As the country as a whole begins to buy-in they will necessarily take a more active interest in what is being done at the national level. I don't intend to paint a rosy picture, but rather one of potential.

With regard to the 'hands tied' aspect of this conflict: Political pressure is a reality in all aspects of our lives. Soldiers are doing their jobs and continuing forward with their assigned missions...they are just unable to carry out those missions as well as they could under slightly different rules. I was not implying in my previous post that we would be able to accomplish a 'different' mission if the rules were changed.

Right now most Infantry units will not leave the wire with less than a platoon. It means they can patrol an area with a lot of guys rather than patrol multiple areas with smaller elements....It makes their effective footprint much smaller.

It has become nearly impossible to get risky missions approved. We recently attempted to pre-emptively smash a large (several hundred) group of INS preparing to conduct an attack against one of our bases. It took more than a week of planning and working channels before it was finally denied because the INS had moved on by the time we were able to get all the approvals.

In order to get a basic mission approved we have to produce a monster power point presentation where formatting errors will get your mission kicked back to correct....which simply lengthens our response time and requires us to put a lot more time into producing pretty products than 1: training 2: planning or 3: conducting missions.

This is largely because of the pressure to do everything possible to ensure nothing bad happens. I hate to say it but ultimately we are soldiers and need the freedom to make mistakes or we cannot turn around quickly enough to counter INS fighters who have no paperwork before conducting operations.

Again, it is a frustration, not a show stopper. With the current rule-set these difficulties can be overcome through a combination of new tactics and more troops....But by allowing a higher OPTEMPO for the soldiers already here the additional troops would be largely unecessary (though helpful).

I fully agree with your statement regarding Political Incoherence....I was trying to separate that from the perspective of the Military...To most of the leadership on the ground here the war is winnable and we have clear goals.


Will:
The Soviet Union killed so many regular Afghans that they made enemies of the entire country. They also had less technology (which helps, but doesn't win the war, I know), a less palatable ideology and made a lot of mistakes which we have learned from. They also became tied to their bases and conducting only large operations...Something we are having trouble with but have not fully fallen into.

The Northern Alliance had pushed (slightly) out of the mountains as far as bagram airfield. They were stuck there in a stalemate and had been for several years. The airfield is only a handful of kilometers from the mountain safe havens and that is why they were not pushed back...The taliban had the NA guys near bagram outnumbered 10 to 1 but were fatalistic enough to believe that all they would gain would be a few kilometers of plain before being stopped by the NA at the base of the mountains.

Likewise in Nangarhar the NA controlled the northern mountains but not the dominant plain or the airfield.

The NA controlled most of the northern provinces but very little overall of the central and southern provinces. They had a large presence in the East but were not in control of any of the key industrial (such as it is in Afghanistan) or commerce centers.

__________________
"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

aceventura3

Cowboy Up!


Translation:

We got big military, we gonna us it, don't "F" with us!

Me understand this, me not understand Obama nuance.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

So you understand Kim Jong Il more than you understand Obama? I don't think you're alone on that.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

I post my problems with Obama's politics. I have never posted my views on Kim Jong Il.

I know what I post is often so pointed that it can be shocking, but I never try to make what is simple overly complicated.

The truth is that we were attacked on 9/11 and some people (those who are honest), have to admit that their first reaction was to retaliate with force. A man with a gun, trained to use the gun, may not want to use it, but he will use it if he feels there is a need to use it to defend life, liberty and property. This is in the nature of some people. We can play games all day long with the reasons why we used our military in Afghanistan, but at the root is this human nature issue. Your nature may be different, and I understand that - but do you understand my nature? I will never initiate a violent act, but if I am hit - my reflex is to hit back. A person like me can be reasoned with, and I can be persuaded by people who have a different nature than mine and I will weigh what I think is morally right. I am not saying I just want to go out and randomly hurt people, that is the nature of a criminal, not me. I understand my nature and I understand the person whose instinct is not to swing back - what I don't understand is what is in the middle of these two - Obama. I also never really understood Canada, Did you folks support the war or not? Was military action the right thing to do or not? Why? To me Bush had clarity.

Also, at some point the need to keep swinging diminishes - I got there with Afghanistan a while ago. I understand (understanding and agreeing with. are different to me) those who want to keep swinging, but I don't understand those who "swing" for political purposes - which I think Obama is doing.

So, we can compare what I present to world leaders who would kill indiscriminately or those who have actually killed millions of people who wanted to live in freedom - but there is an honest and real difference.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

silent_jay

...

Baraka_Guru

We are a practical people. We'll help you do things if things need doing. We like results; we like accountability; we like to make sure what we're doing makes sense. Like you said, there comes a time when you have to stop swinging. Many Canadians supported the action in Afghanistan because the Taliban are bad people and were running the show there, and they appeared to be supporting and hosting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

That was ten years ago. We stopped thinking about it in terms of "this place is run by the Taliban and they're supporting and hosting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda." For years now we've looked at Afghanistan as something else completely. It's not just about military might and using it.

I'm not sure what Obama's position is; I'm not sure of his plan. But perhaps the issue here is that he too knows it's not just about military might and using it.

The New American Century didn't work out as planned.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

I can say that I supported the use of military action in Afghanistan, I think we sent the message needing to be sent, that Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan and I see no need for us to be there today. However, I am still willing to use the special ops or covert military action as needed.

What you wrote is a bit foggy.

Well, did we support the war...I guess...we sent troops... Now imagine that being said by:



---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

So, you basically agree with me and Kim regarding Obama nuance on this issue.

Regarding American Century, I just want world peace and for people to be free to live as they choose.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Well, not exactly. I just haven't happened to read much about the American position in Afghanistan recently. About nuance: sometimes it's required for difficult situations. The inability to use nuance can get you into trouble. I think this was G. W. Bush's problem. Leading in the aftermath of such a disruptive force must be a part of Obama's challenge.

Should Obama consider the cowboy approach? Maybe another surge. Maybe say "resolve" more. And "freedom." And "justice." He should review the most popular keywords that Bush used.

Yeah, it's too bad that wasn't the goal.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

silent_jay

...

roachboy

ace likes the clarity of cowboy movies. he thinks it's good when people say the sort of things that can only possibly hold true in simplistic novels. that clarity of fiction makes him feel like Purpose is Clear.
it's ludicrous in that thousand points of light kinda way.

meanwhile back in reality, to the extent that it's knowable, it appears that afghanistan offers no-one any good alternatives at all. like no-one. and it's beyond bad that people like slims and others in the various militaries which invaded afghanistan along with the u s of a are left hanging out to dry in an incoherent situation. nation-building without a direction, coalition formation without a center...the only thing that seems obvious as a strategy is fight the taliban...but it also seems that by doing that the us and what's left of its allies legitimate the taliban because they allow it to position itself as resisting occupation...apparently the niceities of not-meaning-to-be-an-occupation-force-but-being-one-anyway-until-we-can-sort-something-out are lost on alot of folk. much in the way the logic of opium eradication was. you know, a good idea from one viewpoint but not so much from another. works sometimes and for a while but then not so much. problems of resources, problems of consistency and delivery, problems of language, all that. not everything fails but not everything works and it seems, from a distance, like things are just sliding sideways. and it seems, from a distance, that sliding sideways would work to the advantage of the people whose homes are being messed with. motivation. this is not a new story.

but yeah. i can see the appeal of cowboys-and-indians particularly for the right given that it's their policies that landed the united states and others in the ongoing slow-motion clusterfuck in afghanistan in which sometimes for a while its not that and other times it is depends where you are and when you're there. like anything else, anywhere else. except with more guns. and language problems.

i dont see any good alternatives.
i agree with slims that it's probably not a great idea to just cut and run. but not doing it doesn't seem so great either.

basically there's no strategy. well there is one: dont appear to lose. that seems the primary objective of the moment, the main goal of the current campaigns: do not appear to lose.

alot of very bad things can happen to alot of people on all sides in that kind of strategic situation.

i hope i'm wrong.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

What do you think we're doing now? Even the watered down reports of civilian deaths coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan are really high. The total number of civilian deaths is almost certainly in the mid to high tens of thousands, far higher than it would have been had we not made the mistake of invading.
Unmanned drones, the highest current level of US military technology, regularly kill civilians. It's getting so bad that in June the United Nations Human Rights Council released a 29 page report detailing the killing of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Doesn't this all seem a bit too familiar?
Respectfully, I disagree. The idea of the stalemate was pushed on us in the runup to the bombings of Taliban training camps in order to make the NA look like they couldn't win and the Taliban look a lot stronger than they were. Were the Taliban and NA evenly matched? Absolutely. Still, in late 2000 and early 2001, the NA were making huge inroads both in the North and East. Moreover, the Taliban were losing a lot of the support of the people.

aceventura3

There is nuance that is based on subtle tangible differences, perhaps the nuance in color shading in art. It is there, it can be seen, those who can not see it can be trained to see it and appreciate it. Then there is nuance based on manipulative techniques to deceive.

There is no nuance in war. War is death and destruction. Bush did not use nuance to try to deceive, he stated clearly why we did what we did militarily. Why is Obama doing a "surge"? Who really knows, because the troops are coming home in 2011, right? Wrong, it depends??? What is the goal??? Oh, never mind...I just don't get it.

There is another cowboy lyric, this one from Kenny rogers, The Gambler:

The Gambler (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Who's goal are you talking about?

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

Speaking of fog.

What can be said in a sentence takes you and the people you often cite hundreds of words. Perhaps to intellectuals there is comfort in being verbose.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

There is more to it than that.

Is that too nuanced for you? Maybe read the rest of the speech and come back with some questions.

That isn't "resolvey" enough, don't you think?

PNAC's

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot