I hate the press. Seriously.

[Wezil]

Not to threadjack but....

If you believe Iraq was a "success" you're deluding yourself. The country will collapse under sectarian violence once the US garrison is removed. Of course then you can just blame it on the Iraqi's and wash your hands of it...

[Zkribbler]

No, he's talking out of his ass. Sorry, Zk.
The people of South Vietnam were fine with being citizens of South Vietnam.
Were they all standing around, waiting for liberation by the North? Uh, no.

On the other hand, there weren't great masses of South Vietnamese pounding on our doors to warn us of the upcoming Tet Offensive. The bottom line is, the vast majority of South Vietnamese didn't care who won; they just wanted both sides to stop shooting at them.

What about "boat people"? There weren't masses of people trying to reach North Vietnam. They were coming here.

And God bless them. But many, many times more stayed than left.

BTW, in the long run, they've figured out we were right:

In 1986, the Sixth Party Congress introduced significant economic reforms with market economy elements as part of a broad economic reform package called "đổi mới" (Renovation), resulting in a Socialist-oriented market economy. Private ownership was encouraged in industries, commerce and agriculture. Vietnam achieved around 8% annual GDP growth from 1990 to 1997 and continued at around 7% from 2000 to 2005, making it the world's second-fastest growing economy. Simultaneously, foreign investment grew threefold and domestic savings quintupled. Manufacturing, information technology and high-tech industries form a large and fast-growing part of the national economy. Vietnam is a relative newcomer to the oil business, but today it is the third-largest oil producer in Southeast Asia with output of 400,000 barrels per day (64,000 m3/d). Vietnam is one of Asia's most open economies: two-way trade is around 160% of GDP, more than twice the ratio for China and over four times India's.[35]

They have free markets. Now, they need a multi-party political system.

[David Floyd]

Wezil,

The British military thought they could subjugate the Pashtuns. So did the Russian military. Were they simply not knowledgeable or were perhaps filled with some hubris?

The British military didn't have the mobility required to subjugate the Pashtuns, nor were they really interested in winning over the civilian population. They basically saw the Pashtuns - and others in the area - as somewhat "less" than the white man. As for the Russian military, they were facing a guerilla resistance armed by the CIA with modern portable SAMs and guaranteed safe havens in Pakistan (oops, they still have the safe havens, don't they?).

The US has the mobility, logistics, firepower, and moral authority necessary to win the war, and is not facing an enemy that is continually armed by a superpower competitor. My opinion is that the US needs to EXPAND the war in Afghanistan, and get tough with Pakistan, but to do so with Russian support. I've been saying for a couple of years now that we need to actively pursue stronger relations with Russia.

If the Generals are so smart why did they wait 8 years before realising they don't have enough troops?

I'm not talking about "The Generals", I am talking about the current general in command in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, and his immediate superior, General Petraus. Additionally, it's worth noting that for a good chunk of the past 8 years, the US military was fully deployed, mostly into Iraq, and any major formations in CONUS had just completed a rotation in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh goody! Iraq was a bad example so you'll reach back almost another hundred years for a worse example. DF - Afghanistan is not the deserts of Iraq or the plains of Europe. We have several Afghanistan examples already - Why don't you use one of them?

Because those examples aren't any all that relevant to the actual situation today in Afghanistan. My point wasn't about Afghanistan, my point was about what happens when you let politics and politicians operationally control wars, rather than just the high-level decision making.

Again you make the automatic assumption that surge = victory wrt Afghanistan completely avoiding the point I made earlier.

Not at all. I already said I wasn't an expert and can't give you a strategy for Afghanistan. I don't know that an Iraq-style surge would be effective in Afghanistan, just as you don't know that it wouldn't be. My point was, and remains, let's leave the military strategy to the military, and further, once the politicians give the military a mission, then let's also give the military the resources it needs to complete the mission.

Why Obama is trying to stifle and shut up McChrystal is absolutely beyond me. If he wants to order McChrystal not to ask for reinforcements, then what's the point of having a general on the scene? Why not just run the war from the White House a la Lyndon Johnson?

[David Floyd]

If you believe Iraq was a "success" you're deluding yourself. The country will collapse under sectarian violence once the US garrison is removed. Of course then you can just blame it on the Iraqi's and wash your hands of it...

Just exactly whose fault would it be then? How can you allow the people actually committing the sectarian violence to blame the US for it? What, did the US force them to kill each other over religion, etc.?

Yes, they've been doing it for hundreds of years, but no, it isn't America's fault. It's their fault for being ignorant dip****s who believe in the equivalent of Santa Claus, and are willing to kill each other over a debate about whether or not Santa uses reindeer or horses to pull his sleigh (to continue the analogy).

[RGBVideo]

Just exactly whose fault would it be then?

what has this to do with the rationale of the war?

Again you make the automatic assumption that surge = victory wrt Afghanistan

what is victory? when has victory been accomplished? it was the same problem in vietnam.

[Dinner]

No, the problem is people are able to choose which news they want to hear in general...

I have to agree with that.

[Wezil]

Good post DF. I expected you to turn ugly but you didn't.

The British military didn't have the mobility required to subjugate the Pashtuns, nor were they really interested in winning over the civilian population. They basically saw the Pashtuns - and others in the area - as somewhat "less" than the white man. As for the Russian military, they were facing a guerilla resistance armed by the CIA with modern portable SAMs and guaranteed safe havens in Pakistan (oops, they still have the safe havens, don't they?).

The US has the mobility, logistics, firepower, and moral authority necessary to win the war, and is not facing an enemy that is continually armed by a superpower competitor. My opinion is that the US needs to EXPAND the war in Afghanistan, and get tough with Pakistan, but to do so with Russian support. I've been saying for a couple of years now that we need to actively pursue stronger relations with Russia.

Much better answer. I disagree but at least this makes sense.

I guess the big difference between the Russian and NATO attempts is the existence of support for the insurgency. The borders are still porous (as you concede) so what we are really talking about is $$. I've seen no indication the Afghan insurgency is short on cash. I'm sure the poppy trade solves that problem.

I'm not talking about "The Generals", I am talking about the current general in command in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, and his immediate superior, General Petraus. Additionally, it's worth noting that for a good chunk of the past 8 years, the US military was fully deployed, mostly into Iraq, and any major formations in CONUS had just completed a rotation in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This is your weak argument.

So only some generals should be listened to? McChrystal is good enough to be followed but others aren't? Do you have a list of credible generals so I know what ones I can ignore in the future? What makes McChrysteal right when the command for the previous 8 years go it so wrong?

Because those examples aren't any all that relevant to the actual situation today in Afghanistan. My point wasn't about Afghanistan, my point was about what happens when you let politics and politicians operationally control wars, rather than just the high-level decision making.

I can go back through history and find plenty of examples of generals ****ing up the conduct of a war.

Not at all. I already said I wasn't an expert and can't give you a strategy for Afghanistan. I don't know that an Iraq-style surge would be effective in Afghanistan, just as you don't know that it wouldn't be. My point was, and remains, let's leave the military strategy to the military, and further, once the politicians give the military a mission, then let's also give the military the resources it needs to complete the mission.

I'm not an expert either but I think the public debate needs to go further before the war is widened. I'm not at all surprised that military commanders feel a wider war is the best policy. Quite frankly I would be surprised to hear them say the opposite. As I mentioned earlier, it's in their DNA. Soldiers are trained to fight.

Why Obama is trying to stifle and shut up McChrystal is absolutely beyond me. If he wants to order McChrystal not to ask for reinforcements, then what's the point of having a general on the scene? Why not just run the war from the White House a la Lyndon Johnson?

I think the problem is McChrystal is trying to force Obama's hand on policy through his public statements. This is not the role of the military in a democracy. If the good general disagrees with the POTUS then he should do so behind closed doors. McChrystal has been channeling MacArthur...

[Wezil]

Just exactly whose fault would it be then? How can you allow the people actually committing the sectarian violence to blame the US for it? What, did the US force them to kill each other over religion, etc.?

Yes, they've been doing it for hundreds of years, but no, it isn't America's fault. It's their fault for being ignorant dip****s who believe in the equivalent of Santa Claus, and are willing to kill each other over a debate about whether or not Santa uses reindeer or horses to pull his sleigh (to continue the analogy).

They had a strong man that kept a lid on this stuff. Your government removed him.

You have a responsibility for the instability you have created but as I say, the US public will claim otherwise. Your post above is exactly how I see the argument unfolding.

[Wezil]

what is victory? when has victory been accomplished? it was the same problem in vietnam.

Yep. Hence why this needs to be debated/decided. The Cdn involvement to date was based on a stack of BS premises that proved over the last 8 years to be folly. Unless our minority PM gets a majority government by 2011 we will be gone from combat operations. I believe some of the Euro's are working on a similar time line. This is soon to become a US mission so I hope they sort out their goals. For the rest of us Afghanistan is becoming a theoretical.

[David Floyd]

Wezil,

Good post DF. I expected you to turn ugly but you didn't.

Nah, I only turn ugly and sarcastic when provoked or bored.

Much better answer. I disagree but at least this makes sense.

You don't agree that stronger relations with Russia would help?

I guess the big difference between the Russian and NATO attempts is the existence of support for the insurgency. The borders are still porous (as you concede) so what we are really talking about is $$. I've seen no indication the Afghan insurgency is short on cash. I'm sure the poppy trade solves that problem.

Yes, and the poppy trade has actually expanded since the war began and the Taliban was removed. I agree this is a problem. Part of the problem is the lack of a firm anti-terror relationship with Pakistan. I don't know what the solution is here, but again, same as with Russia, the relationship is the problem. We have to find away to address the legitimate security concerns of both Russia and Pakistan, while at the same time ensuring our ability to base aircraft and troops in the region and pursue terrorists across international borders.

So only some generals should be listened to? McChrystal is good enough to be followed but others aren't? Do you have a list of credible generals so I know what ones I can ignore in the future? What makes McChrysteal right when the command for the previous 8 years go it so wrong?

Good question, although I think part of the answer lies in the fact that inadequate resources were available, due to the ongoing conflict in Iraq. We have more forces available for Afghanistan now, so why not use them? Petraus was right about Iraq, and while I understand Afghanistan is different, the US has major advantages that neither Britain nor the Soviet Union ever had. I am operating on the assumption that doing something is better than doing nothing, so let's give a troop surge a shot - and while McChrystal has yet to prove himself, Petraus has shown himself to be the right person to command CENTCOM. Give his command team a shot to execute the mission with the resources they request before you write Afghanistan off as unwinnable. If we try that route, and it doesn't work, then you might have a point, but it's tough to sell the argument that no military strategy will work, no matter what.

I can go back through history and find plenty of examples of generals ****ing up the conduct of a war.

Yep, and I can point to plenty of politicians who did the same. My point isn't that generals are incompetent, my point is that we can probably take it as a truism that a military officer is more competent to develop and execute military strategy than a politician. As a counter-example, we can easily point to all the cases of malpractice every year, but to say that is an argument in favor of letting plumbers perform surgery is ridiculous.

I'm not an expert either but I think the public debate needs to go further before the war is widened. I'm not at all surprised that military commanders feel a wider war is the best policy. Quite frankly I would be surprised to hear them say the opposite. As I mentioned earlier, it's in their DNA. Soldiers are trained to fight.

When military commanders say that a wider war is the best policy, they are referring to a military solution. I would argue that a wider war is almost always the best policy, if a military solution is the goal. For example, invading North Vietnam in the late 1960s would have produced a favorable military outcome, and using atomic weapons against China would almost certainly have produced a favorable military outcome in Korea. I think military commanders recognize the difference between military efficiency and political reality, though, which is why we didn't use the A-bomb against China or invade North Vietnam. That's fine, but my point is, don't ask the military to provide a conclusive military solution if you aren't willing to give them the resources and other means necessary to secure such a solution.

I think the problem is McChrystal is trying to force Obama's hand on policy through his public statements. This is not the role of the military in a democracy. If the good general disagrees with the POTUS then he should do so behind closed doors. McChrystal has been channeling MacArthur...

That's a tough statement to disagree with, however, it IS true that Obama is doing his very best to do nothing. It appears that the polls and re-election are more important to Obama than a decisive resolution in Afghanistan. While I agree that the role of the military is not to, as you say, channel MacArthur, I can't disagree with the merits of what McChrystal is doing.

They had a strong man that kept a lid on this stuff. Your government removed him.

That doesn't excuse the fact that the militants are still committing violence. That isn't our fault, it's theirs.

[Wezil]

What do you consider a "win" in Afghanistan? Keep in mind even if McChrystal recieves the troops he's asking for NATO forces will only be half what Soviet forces were.

[David Floyd]

The win scenario for me is the elimination of the Taliban as an effective force in Afghanistan.

[Wezil]

I don't think it can be done militarily. Not unless you want to ethnically cleanse the Pashtun from both Afghanistan and Pakistan...

I thank you for the discussion though.

[Straybow]

He didn't say eliminate the Taliban, only eliminate them as an effective force in Afghanistan. As long as they're driven back into the borderlands and no longer rule the Pashtun in Afghanistan, that would be success enough.

[Wezil]

The Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and 2nd largest in Pakistan. 40 million +

What you are proposing is akin to beating the Catholic out of the Irish.