Afghan withdrawl strategy

[Felch]

Majorities in the UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands already oppose the war. How long do you think they're going to stick with us? Long enough for Afghanistan to crawl out of the middle ages?

You think we'll be considered more evil than China? Did China massacre the Sioux? Did China enslave millions of Africans? Did China firebomb the refugees who taken sanctuary in Dresden? We are evil, Imran. We just have very good PR.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Opposing the war and hating the US are two vastly different issues. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

[Ramo]

The news is full of reports about how badly NATO is doing in Afghanistan. It seems as though we've built a lovely military machine for stomping the **** out of Russians in Germany, but it's unprepared for nation building in Afghanistan. So now the talk is of sending tens of thousands more troops (which may not even help matters) or of tucking our tail between our legs and slinking away.

One idea I haven't heard proposed is to leave, and burn everything behind us.

I know that this is probably because our defense strategy is decided by a bunch of people who worry about human rights and other nonsense. To them, the idea of torching farms and villages out of spite is inhumane. It's a "war crime" and we're better than that. To me, it's a winning strategy that the United States has used on many occasions. To me, the only crime in war is losing*.

A hundred and fifty years ago, native tribes like the Comanche and Sioux posed a real threat to Americans on the frontier. Decades of brutal warfare later, and now they just run casinos and live in poverty. In order to win we pulled out all the stops. We attacked their economy by slaughtering buffalo for sport. We attacked their civilians at places like Wounded Knee. We hunted them like animals, until they submitted to our will. Some might look back on that with regret, but most people accept it as the moral price we paid to be a great nation.

In Afghanistan we run the risks of either quagmire or defeat. Why not just recast our whole campaign as a carrot and stick approach? We offered them schools and wells and other benefits of development. We gave the Afghan people a chance to live like civilized human beings. But they chose the retrograde medieval fanaticism of the Taliban and the parasitic corruption of the Karzai clan instead. We can't change their minds, but we can certainly make them pay for their ingratitude.

The West should withdraw. We have no stake in Afghanistan economically or strategically. We should pull out gradually, and burn everything that we leave behind. The Taliban isn't able to contest us in conventional warfare (although they are getting better at it). They won't be able to stop us from destroying villages and burning food supplies. And it will be very difficult for them to persuade people that they won when they're boiling their shoes for soup.

Does anyone have a better idea?

*Seriously, look at how the post-WWII war crimes tribunals worked. America waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific, the UK and US firebombed cities in Germany and Japan, and the Soviets massacred Polish POWs at Katyn. None of the victors had to answer for these crimes.

So your propositions are that:
1.) The Afghan warlords are going to go after leading American political and military figures in war crime tribunals if we don't burn the place down.
2.) The capacity of an international network of what amounts to a small number of people to commit acts of terror in the US is roughly proportional to the mean wage in a single country.
3.) The power of this network won't dramatically grow after we actually commit one of the greatest atrocities in modern history.

Ok.

[Felch]

Opposing the war and hating the US are two vastly different issues. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

I'm not saying the Dutch hate us. I'm saying our alliance is falling apart in Afghanistan.

So your propositions are that:
1.) The Afghan warlords are going to go after leading American political and military figures in war crime tribunals if we don't burn the place down.

Nope, never said that. I said that only countries that lose wars are punished for war crimes. Status quo ante would not be a defeat.

2.) The capacity of an international network of what amounts to a small number of people to commit acts of terror in the US is roughly proportional to the mean wage in a single country.

You're trying to say something here, but the message is being mixed up with your cutesy cleverness. Spit it out. It's certainly not something I've said.

3.) The power of this network won't dramatically grow after we actually commit one of the greatest atrocities in modern history.

Ok.

No it won't. Countries only seek vengeance when the victory isn't crushing. Germany wasn't ruthlessly crushed in 1918, so the reality of their defeat never sunk in. In 1945 they were curb stomped, and they've been much better behaved ever since. Japan was a psycho militaristic menace until we rained hellfire on them. Now they're pacified and friendly.

Frankly it's on you to prove that brutality doesn't work. I'm at a loss for examples of it failing.

[Wezil]

Felch - Your plan serves no strategic purpose. Unlike with your native analogy, you aren't advocating wiping them out and taking over. You advocate wiping them out as you leave. This sounds purely vindictive to me and can only hurt your international reputation.

[Felch]

The strategic purpose is to deny the Taliban a credible victory. That might not seem important to you, but I believe that giving them a taste of success will make us look weak, and provoke further attacks in the future. If we humiliate them on the way out, by showing that they are unable to protect their homes and livelihoods, then we take that "victory" away from them. People won't be eager to wage war on us if the end result is total ruin.

[Ramo]

Nope, never said that. I said that only countries that lose wars are punished for war crimes. Status quo ante would not be a defeat.

Since realistically, the worst case situation is status quo ante, why even bring up "the only crime is losing" nonsense? That was arguing against a straw man.

You're trying to say something here, but the message is being mixed up with your cutesy cleverness. Spit it out. It's certainly not something I've said.

You said that they wouldn't have time for terrorism when they're boiling shoes for food. The sentence you quoted follows from that. Is something unclear?

No it won't. Countries only seek vengeance when the victory isn't crushing.

We're not dealing with a country. We don't have a strategic problem with Pashtun nationalism. We have a strategic problem with a small number of Salafi Jihadis not particularly tied to Afghanistan. One of the problems we're having in Afghanistan is that we're not effectively disaggregating the two.

Frankly it's on you to prove that brutality doesn't work. I'm at a loss for examples of it failing.

Seriously? How 'bout the vast majority of Subsaharan Africa? Large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia? What about the very country that we're dealing with? How gently do you think the Soviet military really treated the Afghans?

[Riesstiu IV]

The only way to win the war on terror is to do a mass conversion to a more strict version of Islam and accuse the Taliban of being liberals.

[Felch]

Since realistically, the worst case situation is status quo ante, why even bring up "the only crime is losing" nonsense? That was arguing against a straw man.

To head off that argument before people started whining about the Hague.

You said that they wouldn't have time for terrorism when they're boiling shoes for food. The sentence you quoted follows from that. Is something unclear?

Okay, that makes more sense. Why that has anything to do with mean wages is something that must have clicked in your head, but not mine.

We're not dealing with a country. We don't have a strategic problem with Pashtun nationalism. We have a strategic problem with a small number of Salafi Jihadis not particularly tied to Afghanistan. One of the problems we're having in Afghanistan is that we're not effectively disaggregating the two.

I agree with this. If the Afghans would have stayed out of it from the beginning and hand over the Arabs, we could have been friends. But they held honor above reason, and now we're fighting. As long as we're fighting, we can't let them have the propaganda victory of our "defeat". We have to make it clear that we leave on our own terms.

Seriously? How 'bout the vast majority of Subsaharan Africa? Large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia? What about the very country that we're dealing with? How gently do you think the Soviet military really treated the Afghans?

The Soviets were stymied in their brutality by American, Arab, and Pakistani support for the mujaheddin. If it weren't for that, the Afghans would have submitted, just like the Hungarians and the Poles and the Czechs, and all the other slaves of the Soviet Empire. Brutality works. As far as Africa and the Middle East, you're not really being specific. I certainly recall that Leopold was no kindly father of the Congolese.

[Ramo]

Okay, that makes more sense. Why that has anything to do with mean wages is something that must have clicked in your head, but not mine.

Eating shoes implies having low wages because people generally don't enjoy eating shoes. It's not complicated.

As long as we're fighting, we can't let them have the propaganda victory of our "defeat". We have to make it clear that we leave on our own terms.

Why? We "lost" Vietnam. Now we have to suffer their low priced and delicious cuisine and hot womenfolk.

Incidentally, there's a far less horrific and expensive way to leave on our own terms. It's called, "buying them off."

The Soviets were stymied in their brutality by American, Arab, and Pakistani support for the mujaheddin. If it weren't for that, the Afghans would have submitted,

Why are you talking about foreign support as if it were unrelated to the conflict?

More to the point, why do you believe that the funding and personnel spigots to Salafi organizations don't do anything but go drastically up after this genocide?

As far as Africa and the Middle East, you're not really being specific. I certainly recall that Leopold was no kindly father of the Congolese.

I'll refer you to any number of endemic wars. Feel free to pick one. Since you're a fan of Leopold, you might want to check out what's been going on in the DRC and surrounding countries for the past couple decades.

[Felch]

The conflict in the DRC is mostly militias raping and murdering civilians while organized militaries stay out of the fighting. It's nothing at all like the sort of widespread devastation that western powers are capable of.

[Berzerker]

you see any herds of buffalo in Afghanistan? What exactly are you gonna burn that aint already in ruins or cant be replanted or rebuilt? I want Al Qaeda to eventually move back into Afghanistan so we can bomb them with impunity, this wont help.

Btw, the Indian wars were a mixed bag and hardly total war - beef producers wanted big US armies out west "chasing" hostile Indians and there was no rush to get 'em except onto reservations consuming our goods.

[Wezil]

The strategic purpose is to deny the Taliban a credible victory. That might not seem important to you, but I believe that giving them a taste of success will make us look weak, and provoke further attacks in the future. If we humiliate them on the way out, by showing that they are unable to protect their homes and livelihoods, then we take that "victory" away from them. People won't be eager to wage war on us if the end result is total ruin.

Driving the West out will be proclaimed a victory, no matter what the fig leaf looks like.

[loinburger]

The Afghan withdrawal strategy is to take your penis out of Afghanistan before you ejaculate.

[Wezil]

"I say leave it in there and let's get the job done." [/Carlin]