"...it represents a hard look at the challenges involved in implementing Obama's strategy for Afghanistan. The administration has narrowly defined its goal as defeating al-Qaeda and other extremist groups and denying them sanctuary, but that in turn requires a sweeping counterinsurgency campaign aimed at protecting the Afghan population, establishing good governance and rebuilding the economy." Washpost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George will has spoken and he is heard. There can never be enough friends on a battlefield.
My only problem with his thinking on this is that he believes that you can conduct effective counter-terrorism operations from offshore. No, you can not do that on the scale required in Afghanistan. Without a base area onshore you will never be able to obtain the people based intelligence you would need for targeting counter-terrorist operations, the distances will be too great for effective and frequent onshore operations against Al-Qa'ida, and the availability of aerial fire and evacuation support for such operations will be severely limited by the same long distances. In such a situation you would remain dependent on the same armed drones and strike aircraft with which we have been killing many non-combatants. As I have written earlier, the conduct of effective counter-terrorism would require a sizable lodgement or redoubt in the Kabul/Bagram area. Other than that...
That is a minor matter compared to the error outlined in red and blue above concerning the nature of McChrystal's report. Assuming that the Post has gotten this right, it must be said that the logic of thinking that it follows from the goal of preventing Al-Qa'ida's use of Afghanistan as a base that one must rebuild and create a new Afghanistan in a massive and probably unending COIN campaign is totally flawed.
The president's announced goals are essentially negative, "defeating al-Qa'ida and..."
The goals of COIN are essentially positive, i.e., "build a better Afghanistan."
How did this happen? How did McChrystal and his "brain trust" get this so wrong? Ah, it is COIN's "Siren Song" with its soothing aura of progressive benevolence and pseudo-intellectual philosophy.
Once again, the costs inherent in COIN are not worth paying if one does not own the place being fought over.
The president should reject the assumptions underlying the McChrystal Report. Clemenceau was right. Generals should not be allowed to set the agenda for war. pl
Unless pentagon install the most brilliant political operator of the century in afghanistan by end of this week. That place is about to turn fratricide. It's about to turn into shooting gallery. (my advice act decisively. take out all bad operators on top. now. declare emergency, then instal competent player. Or afghanistan will turn into the biggest drug cartel operation and war zone known to history. 2 weeks from now, there will be nothing in kabul to save, within 2 months afghanistan will be nothing but dust and refugee, then winter sets in.)
Posted by: curious | 02 September 2009 at 03:49 PM
I would also note that the Obama-McChrystal strategy appears detached from regional considerations and any effective regional US diplomacy.
Russia, India, Iran, and China are directly affected by the Afghanistan situation, for example. Where is the discussion of diplomatic arrangements for a regional security approach to the Afghan situation?
The issue is framed as merely a US(NATO)-Afghan-Pak issue which it is not.
Posted by: Clifford Kiracofe | 02 September 2009 at 04:28 PM
Pl! Assuming you are correct and the US should stay in for the long haul what do we now know about Taliban sources of supply for weapons, ammunition and leadership? Trying to learn about an area that I know virtually nothing about! Specifically integration of INTEl into ops, large scale or small scale! He was not perfect in analysis but wish a S.L.A. Marshall look alike would carefully review and post-mortem some of the ops from survivor interviews to documentation. Or would the USA now be classifying such analysis? What are they really teaching after the first decade (almost)at Leavenworth and the various War Colleges?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 02 September 2009 at 04:58 PM
Afghanistan broke Alexander the Great
Did it?
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1325/little-support-in-nato-for-afghanistan-troop-increases>Few in NATO Support Call For Additional Forces in Afghanistan. Pew Research Center. Global Attitudes.
Posted by: LeaNder | 02 September 2009 at 05:56 PM
Colonel,
this is a very important issue for the USA -on par with Hamlet's "to be or not to be" - and I do not agree with one previous comment that this discussion is "group think" and "echo-chamber". It happens to be that the issue can only be seen in 'binary' fashion - either the USA must pull out of Aghanistan or it must get in get in deeper. Tertium non datur. And the only reasonable solution to preserve the USA from further military and financial catastrophy is to take the humiliation now and get out with some honor, than be defeated and ruined later.
Posted by: fanto | 02 September 2009 at 11:13 PM
To cite one of my role models, "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" Well, the Taliban has pretty free access to the lower end of the Paki munitions industry and I'm sure drug lords are never short of weapons. With enough $$, airdrops aren't out of the question. More down home, there are the cottage industries in Landi Kotal & Dara Adamhel up in the NWFP. Those folks can turn out just about anything you ask for (let's see, I know I've got that coach gun I had customed around here somewhere....). Quality ain't all that good, a Russki & Chinese AK aren't that far apart, but a homegrown from NWFP ... well, I'm just glad I didn't have to test fire one. They're loose, and goosey, but they get the job done, likewise the suicide vests & bike bombs.
As to how loving & giving they are to sensitive folks who just drop in for a year or two. Someone passing through gets melmastia, hospitality that's fairly open handed. If you're not of the tribe and need help, you can become hamsaya or get nanawateh ("protected" or be granted "asylum") from the folk, but if you step from the path, well, they ain't like Tom Wolfe's NYC liberals.
Posted by: PirateLaddie | 02 September 2009 at 11:20 PM
Doug,
Re:"it will be interesting to see how China handles it's turn in the Sun."
Methinks the chinese understand the rise & fall of nations almost too well. The only thing to look out for is having future leaders within their party (parties?) tempted by the (foolhardy) lures of imperial expansion in the footsteps of Rome or Britain. & to trumpet their intolerance & supposed cultural superiority like some American leaders do.
Posted by: YT | 03 September 2009 at 01:20 AM
has anyone considered buying off the afghan teleban a' la al-suads and egyptians?
Posted by: holy_bazooka | 04 September 2009 at 06:20 PM