What are the US options in Afghanistan, 8 years after invading the country to eliminate al-Qaeda?

These are some options being debated by policy makers and commentators right now:

- US Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal recommends a nation-building effort that entails protecting the population and political reconciliation with the Taliban. The (modest) goal is said to be a nation above Somalia but below Bangladesh (unfortunately McChrystal's report remains classified, but the gist is known).

- Columnist George Will (Washington Post) speaks for growing US opinion that it's time to withdraw - the effort is not worth it, admit defeat - while "US forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters." See his article here: Time to get out of Afghanistan

- The Opinionator (New York Times) gathers reaction to Will's piece here: Loss of Will

- Jim the Moron (Edge member) supports Will's position in a post elsewhere on this forum: "The 'policy of allowing Americans to be killed in order to prevent Muslims from killing each other' isn't only my concern, but is also worrisome to a growing number of Americans who witnessed the waste of lives in Iraq and the prospect of more in Afghanistan."

What's your opinion?

There are only easy answers to a solution in Afghanistan if one holds an extreme version of the two opposing views.

1. Do whatever it takes to bring stability to Afghanistan, employing all resources available.

2. Withdraw all non-Muslim resources from Afghanistan, allowing the Afghans to stabilize themselves.

It gets much more complex if any modifications to the two extremes are thrown into the mix. Fortunately, I subscribe to # 2 in its entirety; I've argued for all US ground forces to abandon all Islamic entities ASAP. While it was good to see Will abandoning the dark side (the idea of sacrificing Americans to prevent Muslim cutthroats from slaughtering each other), there were plenty of Americans before him tired of the whole US involvement in the Middle East.

A one-paragraph background. The Taleban gain control after the Russians leave. Girls are denied schooling. Al-Qaeda is welcomed. 9/11 happens. The US arrives. The Taleban persist. Obama campaigns on a pledge to fight aggressively in Afghanistan. More US troops pour in. Taleban and other vermin persist.

Now, the Joint Chiefs chairman (Adm Mullen) is advocating a warm and fuzzy - "winning their hearts and minds" - approach there - of course avoiding the fact that winning the hearts and minds of the people you are killing is best achieved by stopping the killing.

We know that withdrawal goes against the hopes and prayers of American neo-imperalists - those who would have Americans continually killed in Muslim lands in order to force an abandonment of Israel as an ally in favor of alliances with barbaric Islamic entities.

Someone in the "Opinionator" link provided by aquicke bemoans the likelihood of a Taleban takeover should the Americans leave. Now, let's see, wasn't that the situation on the ground before the Americans came? Let them have what they deserve (and, at least for the menfolk, apparently want).

Suggested three point plan for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan:

1. Pour petrol over the country.

2. THRow in a lighted match.

3. When smoke clears, start again.

Actually, Afghans might resent being toasted en masse. Best to leave them alone to sort out things for themselves. Left alone, they will revert to the 7th century Islamic primitive state their male warriors so desire.

George Will was wrong about 9-11, wrong about the invasion of Afghanistan, massively wrong in spades regarding Iraq and he is again wrong about Afghanistan for all the wrong reasons in the books. Whatever or wherever George Will directs his fanciful mind and intones upon, a person can never be wrong by simply running like hell 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Will imagines or would like to fill the shoes of the recently deceased William F Buckley Jr., founder, guardian and national icon of modern American conservatism. Ain't gonna happen.

I also find it amusing that some neocons, US Zionists, Israeli firsters and Likudnik sympathizers who were all hot, bothered and fired up over Americans killing Arabs and Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq in the beginning, have traveled all the way to the other extreme demanding total American withdrawal & disengagement from the region in the face of unexpected and unwanted consequences. They are full of horror at the outcome of progressively deepening and more normalized relations the US is developing with Arabs, Persians and Muslims that can only come at Israels expense. The fools obviously hadn't thought out all the other possible scenarios short of defeat in the event the gamble didn't work. They are just going to have endure and deal with it.

American affairs in Afghanistan cannot be viewed in isolation from the region, nor can they be informed by racial or Islamophobic hatreds, or by phony concerns for the lives of US troops. Fortuitously, aquicke reframes the argument at the same time the 'New America Foundation' hosts retired General Anthony Zinni who propounds on Afghanistan and many other regional issues. Zinni addresses a broad range of controversies currently raging within the national security state, that Admiral Mullen's article and General McChrystal's leaked report are merely parts of far larger discussion concerning grand strategy, soft power, hard power, smart power and strategic communications. Some of the new and intensely debated buzz words of the hour among America's foreign policy elites & leaders.

Not surprisingly, Robster is weighing in with his apologies for the American imperialism he favors so much. That's OK, as, unlike as in some of his other dreamlike geopolitical perambulations, he's being consistent.

As in mosts of his ramblings, 'ster seeks out any piece of flotsam he can grab to keep him afloat in the sea of dreams he has conjured up regarding his prayed-for American abandonment of Israel in favor of cozy relations "with Arabs, Persians and Muslims." Too bad he is doomed to see the Israeli/American relationship flourish as Muslim leadership continues to shoot itself in the foot (see almost any recent news item from West Asia).

There is a reality that imperialistic Americans (or purported Americans) must face. Anywhere there are no American ground forces deployed is a place where no American ground forces will be killed. This is of course true for any nationality - here we are speaking of Americans in a Muslim land where they weren't invited, were barely tolerated, and are now in the way of Afghans wishing to sort things out as they will.

Should retired General Zinni be too much for some enfeebled, weak minds to comprehend, there is a very limited, short term solution to the problem. That there is even a limited option sans running away should agonize 'losers' to the depths of their souls.

It should be crystal clear from the various policy views the US is still trying to find its footing in Afghanistan, regardless of frenzied reactions among talking heads to Obama's speech before the VFW two weeks ago.

I have also cautioned before Obama took office that one of his biggest problems will be exercising executive control over the emerging 'national security state.' Many in his party on the extreme left believe Obama has betrayed them, but he is in fact treading carefully as he comes to grips and comprehends the enormity of the monster within.

The previous fool in the W/H first underestimated the nature and extent of this 'state' within government, massively overestimated himself, and then starting with the Plame/Wilson affair and many other unwise actions made enemies out of the very agencies and departments he needed to win any war, anywhere, anytime. Obama must avoid this fate.

Until Obama can assert some level of effective control its likely the foreign policy making apparatus will be stymied in some areas like Afghanistan. In the meantime what's likely to transpire in/country will probably follow the limited contours retired Col. Lang described in a response to a post in his blog.

tinyurl.com/llgx2v

batondor

Your various historical analogies are wrong.

Indochina 1950s? What? The French built the De Lattre Line behind which they effectively defended the population in the Red River Delta and then they waged offensive war outside that perimeter. That's what got them in the end. Dien Bien Phu was too far away from the De Lattre Line.They had a lot more than 20,000 men (between the French Union Forces with 190,000 and those of the State of Vietnam with 150,000 they had 340,000 men) and were engaged in a combination of counter-force operations against the Viet Minh divisions and counter-insurgency against the guerrillas around the "oil spots" that they held. This is a close analog of what we are doing in Afghanistan. We learned the technique from them.

Vietnam - 1960s? At the height of the war we had over 500,000 men in South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese had over 300,000. We, like the French were doing a combination of COIN and major unit counter-force operations.

Iraq? The various little bands of insurgents were attacking the Iraqi state's infrastructure. They stayed away from us except for harassing attacks by fire, mortars, rockets, etc., ineffective ambushes against supply lines all the way from Kuwait and roadside bombs. Mothers cry over the result of such attacks but they are ineffective unless the occupiers simply give up, which we did not.

You have to remember that the communist Vietnamese had a real army with major re-supply from China and the USSR. Nothing like that exists in Iraq, nor will there be anything like that in Afghanistan.

The French, and we in Indochina were never in any danger of losing control of major population centers. That is going to be even more true in Afghanistan.

Have you ever read anything about all this? Both we and the French were trying to defend the whole territory and population of Indochina. Something similar was true in Iraq once we were allowed to understand that the war was a set of insurgencies.

I am not advocating defending a square inch of Afghanistan or one person. Our interest there lies in disrupting and destroying our enemies, not in benefiting the Afghans.

The Kabul-Bagram area can easily be held indefinitely with 20,000 soldiers with appropriate air and artillery support. If the other side would want to try their hand at taking something there, let them try. That way you don't have to look for them.

Another 5,000 or so SOF strike troops would be based in the redoubt. pl

Posted by: Patrick Lang | 01 September 2009 at 03:17 PM

In the breach, what the Col describes is probably the best and likely short term solution at this time.

In the absence of clearly defined goals and a strategy the Col. is describing a very limited footprint and operational posture.

Hearts and minds should never again be American goals in place of hardheaded realpolitik.

Brainlessly throwing ordinance around as George Will suggests and some Islamophobes and racists embrace is what we are already doing in country, which only feeds the problem we are trying to solve.

In the meantime, Obama needs to get his act together with his chieftains Jones, Gates, Mullen, McChrystal, Petraeus and others, who have and are driving and shaping policy outside their pay grades across a number of fields that's impacting upon politics and budgets, besides foreign policies.

MonsoonWind wrote:
Suggested three point plan for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan:

1. Pour petrol over the country.

2. THRow in a lighted match.

3. When smoke clears, start again.

A cynic might suggest this is exactly the status quo. US/Nato has already applied the petrol and the match, and now McChrystal et al want to start again with a new approach.

Good to see the 'ster disavowing his previous defense of the warm and fuzzy approach to Afghanistan - the "winning their hearts and minds" stuff. He is now suiting up to assume the "hardheaded realpolitik" stance. Bless his shifty little heart.

"a very limited footprint" (?) How about no footprint? For example, let's see how the Russians are playing 'ster and all other Americans supporting US presence in Afghanistan for suckers.

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a91o6HRzyLio

"Russia wants to be involved in setting the political, military and intelligence strategy for the war against the Taliban." I'll bet they do - it won't cost them any Russian lives (leave that for the Americans), and damn few rubles.

Meanwhile, the neo-imperialists rejoice at the continued loss of American lives in Muslim lands.

aquicke wrote:
MonsoonWind wrote:
Suggested three point plan for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan:

1. Pour petrol over the country.

2. THRow in a lighted match.

3. When smoke clears, start again.

A cynic might suggest this is exactly the status quo. US/Nato has already applied the petrol and the match, and now McChrystal et al want to start again with a new approach.


Exactly, though NATO has been reluctant, stingy and by stringent roe's locked most of its deployments out of combat operations. That won't change and why McChrystal's report in the final analysis won't be the policy model for Afghanistan. The country is far bigger and more populated than Iraq, and has the worst possible geography to fight a counter-insurgency war with troops the US doesn't have and never will. That's what George Will and racists who get their rocks off when the US is killing Arabs, Persians or Muslims can't get through their densely, hate filled skulls. Especially the kind of senseless killing they envision since it will only accomplish murdering far more innocents. Talk about shooting blind and adding fuel to the fire, which is many magnitudes worse than McChrystal's in-country policy recommendations in his report.

Now, you set before this community reasonable parameters for a discussion concerning "options" in Afghanistan. Otherwise, in the absence of I wouldn't have bothered. In presenting my opinions I went the extra mile in backing them up with impeccable sources with long and honored service careers. People can disagree, but needless tactics by some of impugning and attempting to personalize the discussion doesn't one whit discredit the sources I provided. To make these sources all the more pertinent and credible these two individuals were viscerally opposed to the Iraq War BEFORE it started. That's a claim few can make in America. I know, because my opposition began with Afghanistan and put me in conflict with family, friends, fellow veterans, associates and strangers. And the so called anti war demonstrations I attended against the Iraq war were a joke, since they were all partisan motivated and all about Bush, not anti-war. On the extremes there are more fascists in America than lefties. The only accomplishment of the demonstrations turned off the majority of Americans who span left and right of the political center, dooming any chance of preventing the Iraq war.

At the baseline minimum Col. Lang describes and has long advocated the least costly footprint in treasure, US and Afghan lives. He basically advises using the countries geography to our advantage defensively, resisting the siren songs of counter insurgency and for heavens sake don't go searching for that eternally elusive, decisive battle. A passable level of stability can be achieved far more cheaply by money, arms, training and support of indigent warlords, Pashtuns and other indigent groups, even some Taliban besides Hamid Karzai's corrupt government. Hamid must learn he is not the only game in town. Gen. Zini in 30 minutes of dialog and a similar time period of Q & A comprehensively spells out the reasons, why fors and how comes of America's current posture in the region, especially Afghanistan. His thoughts on the uses of 'envoys' may be surprising, since he was one. And his views on the I/P conflict are why US Zionists and Israeli firsters opposed his envoy-ship in 2002 and opposed his recent nomination to the US State Department. These are very modest men. I have provided links to many institutes and government policy papers that arise out of the foreign policy making apparatus of the US. Zini and Lang's names can be found in the index's and biographies of many of those studies and reports, that have impacted and shaped the last several years and current US foreign policy. Its not for nothing Hillary wanted Zini on her team.

Wars, as we are all tired of hearing are far more easier affairs to start than finish, but history is also loaded with the greater chaos and havoc caused by fools who think otherwise. Ironically, in America these are the same idiots who usually start these loser wars too, spanning the gauntlet between those who "learn nothing and forget nothing," to those who want to run away because they can't bear the consequences. Often, whether these losers break and run or have to be forced out of government, they always leave a legacy of damage and messes to be cleaned up by the men and women who didn't want to fight them.

The US does not want to conquer or stay forever in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ultimately, the US will leave and fully knows it. The goal is not to leave behind greater chaos and havoc that will only lead to greater conflicts and interventions. The US has already traveled that road and knows it doesn't work. Nor will the US completely disengage diplomatically or desist in establishing normal and extensive relations with Arabs, Persians and Muslims. However affairs shape and shake out in Iraq and Afghanistan the US will still at the minimum have 'training and assistance' commands in those countries, even when all combatant commands have been rotated out of country.

US ultra-nationalists, demo & repub interventionists, neo libs & cons, Zionists, Israeli firsters and Likudnik sympathizers did not have these outcomes in mind when they expanded what was essentially an international crime and law enforcement problem into a series of wars on terror. The more rabid Islamophobes and racists among them wanted chaos from the Levant to the Indus river, with millions of Muslims dead and the accomplishment of a Greater Israel lording it over the regions vanquished. Hindsight, a marvelous cognitive attribute obviously discerns it didn't work out that way. But less obviously to many I knew their insane goals were doomed to fail precisely on 19 March 2003, when their one-time beloved champion and hero gave the battle order to advance beyond the line of departures into the forward edges of the battle area into Iraq. That was a @#$%-up that's going to keep gift-giving them for a long time to come.