[lopushok]

This is what I have been saying all along.
Looks like somebody agrees with me.


WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced his new war plan for Afghanistan last year, the centerpiece of the strategy — and a big part of the rationale for sending 30,000 additional troops — was to safeguard the Afghan people, provide them with a competent government and win their allegiance.


Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »

Related
Rethinking the Afghanistan War’s What-Ifs (August 1, 2010)
Enlarge This Image

Bob Strong/Reuters
American soldiers on patrol north of Kandahar, Afghanistan, last week. The counterinsurgency strategy has shown little success.
Eight months later, that counterinsurgency strategy has shown little success, as demonstrated by the flagging military and civilian operations in Marja and Kandahar and the spread of Taliban influence in other areas of the country.

Instead, what has turned out to work well is an approach American officials have talked much less about: counterterrorism, military-speak for the targeted killings of insurgents from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Faced with that reality, and the pressure of a self-imposed deadline to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011, the Obama administration is starting to count more heavily on the strategy of hunting down insurgents. The shift could change the nature of the war and potentially, in the view of some officials, hasten a political settlement with the Taliban.

Based on the American military experience in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, it is not clear that killing enemy fighters is sufficient by itself to cripple an insurgency. Still, commando raids over the last five months have taken more than 130 significant insurgents out of action, while interrogations of captured fighters have led to a fuller picture of the enemy, according to administration officials and diplomats.

American intelligence reporting has recently revealed growing examples of Taliban fighters who are fearful of moving into higher-level command positions because of these lethal operations, according to a senior American military officer who follows Afghanistan closely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

[ThzinChang]

so.. I am happy Obama has taken to torture and murder too..

[SkHukV3N]

so.. I am happy Obama has taken to torture and murder too..

Whatever it takes.

You are not going to win any hearts and minds in Afghanistan by going easy on the Taliban, and the only way to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table is to make it their best option. You do that by aggressively hunting and killing them.

Torture? Not a bad idea. Maybe they should bring back waterboarding. Maybe they could find out where Omar is and put a hellfire down his stovepipe.

[chelviweeme]

Whatever it takes.

You are not going to win any hearts and minds in Afghanistan by going easy on the Taliban, and the only way to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table is to make it their best option. You do that by aggressively hunting and killing them.

Torture? Not a bad idea. Maybe they should bring back waterboarding. Maybe they could find out where Omar is and put a hellfire down his stovepipe.

First, "The Taliban" is not an organized group. Afghanistan is a tribal region and always has been. There is no sense of nation there.

Second, warlords run the place and always have. We aren't going to change that easily.

Third, we know how to do it but we haven't the patience. We want to shoot them until they are peaceful. Fighting for peace is a lot like f**king for virginity. Its never going to happen, no more than it would ever happen in America if we were invaded by a foreign power.

Fourth, we need to reach the children, the boys and girls, from birth until age 7. Thats where the real change will happen.

[IteseFrusty]

First, "The Taliban" is not an organized group. Afghanistan is a tribal region and always has been. There is no sense of nation there.

Second, warlords run the place and always have. We aren't going to change that easily.

Third, we know how to do it but we haven't the patience. We want to shoot them until they are peaceful. Fighting for peace is a lot like f**king for virginity. Its never going to happen, no more than it would ever happen in America if we were invaded by a foreign power.

Fourth, we need to reach the children, the boys and girls, from birth until age 7. Thats where the real change will happen.

The Taliban are an organized group. Thats why they could overthrow the Afghan government and take power if it were not for foreign assistance. There are other groups involved - criminal groups, warlord forces, etc, but the Taliban are the only ones who could topple the regime.

Shoot them until they are peaceful? Dead people are very peaceful. Do you have a better way of making enemies "peaceful"?

We are not there to liberate their women or indoctrinate their children. Having knocked out their government in persuit of Al Qaeda we are now there to help the new government until they are able to handle the situation themselves.

[v74ClzKY]

The Taliban thrive on chaos, so long as they can move themselves, and more importantly, arms, around, they will continue to pop up in inconvenient places, forcing us to re fight battles all over the country, greatly impeding the political, economic and social progress necessary for a cohesive state.

Until we fortify and build up the cities, the population will say at arms length, both because they fear the Taliban lurking, and out of anger for us chasing them around.

[Reafnartefs]

The Taliban thrive on chaos, so long as they can move themselves, and more importantly, arms, around, they will continue to pop up in inconvenient places, forcing us to re fight battles all over the country, greatly impeding the political, economic and social progress necessary for a cohesive state.

Until we fortify and build up the cities, the population will say at arms length, both because they fear the Taliban lurking, and out of anger for us chasing them around.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the soviets controll and fortify all major settlements in Afghanistan for years? Not to mention that probably on a small part of the population actually lives in the "big" settlements. I also heard about recent surveys turning out that already in some areas, the population considers the Taliban to be the good guys.

The way I see it, we're losing both the ideological war and the war on the battlefield. Also, in all western countries, support for this war is crumbling. In nations like Germany, the majority of the people are already in favour of an unconditional, immediate retreat.

Unless we implement a significant change in strategy, combined with a massively increased effort to rebuilt the country and an "diplomatic offense" against the Taliban in Afghanistan, I consider a success of the mission to be impossible at this time.

[gueremaisse]

Commodore,
The mission of the military is supposed to be to kill people and break things. This "counter-insurgency" assassination of leaders crap could impair morale by depriving the various NATO air forces of the "break things" part.
The Purpose of a Military is to Kill People and Break Things

[ThisIsOK]

We have changed strategy. Petraeus is now in charge. Let's give him a chance to do what he did in Iraq.

As for killing the enemy, it works. Provided you kill them faster than they are recruited, trained, and armed. We've actually succeeded in doing that in every insurgency we've ever fought, even Vietnam. The problem wasn't that the Viet Cong was getting stronger, they were getting weaker. The NVA, however, was growing stronger because we couldn't attack them at will and they were receiving arms from China and the Soviets.

Facing a strictly guerilla army with no outside support, a body count strategy can work.

[CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE]

Are you saying that the US coudda, shoudda, woudda won the war on Vietnan? And the result would have been, what? The chance to yell hip, hip hooray! We won! We won! The US lost 55,000 men dead and countless others maimed, but we won! And we get to keep tens of thousands of US troops stationed in Vietman at US taxpayers expense for eternity! We won!

[Dreqsqse]

I remain unconvinced that the West has to offer more to the Afghanis than the Taliban have. The Taliban are closer to average Achmed's mindset than the corrupt drug-trading warlords we put in charge will ever be. Also, after 8 years, Karzai is still not more than the second mayor of Kabul. There still is no strong national government, in the contrary, local governmental institutions are eroded by corruption and infiltration by the Taliban.

What we have to offer to Afghanistan has parallels to the Germany past of 1648. The national government would still be merely more than a facade for a nation which is deeply devided in tribes, partly at war with each other, selling out its own people to foreign powers which recklessly exploit the weakness of their neighbouring country.

Having talked to some (muslim) german soldiers who were deployed in Afghanistan for several years, I think the smartest option would have been to reinstate the king and set up some kind of "constitutional" monarchy (with some kind of senate consisting of delegates sent by the tribes instead of elected politicians). This way, we would have had a figure which had united the tribes, and a caucus through which the people in power (the tribal leaders) could have decided on the future of the nation. That way, we would have acknowledged and honoured the power of the tribes, founded an institution behind which the tribes could have united as a nation and created a government which could challenge the Taliban without having the flaw that it smelled entirely of infidel invaders.

[CuittisIL]

I remain unconvinced that the West has to offer more to the Afghanis than the Taliban have. The Taliban are closer to average Achmed's mindset than the corrupt drug-trading warlords are we put in charge will ever be. Also, after 8 years, Karzai is still not more than the second mayor of Kabul. There still is no strong national government, in the contrary, local governmental institutions are eroded by corruption and infiltration by the Taliban.

What we have to offer to Afghanistan has parallels to the Germany past of 1648. The national government would still be merely more than a facade for a nation which is deeply devided in tribes, partly at war with each other, selling out its own people to foreign powers which recklessly exploit the weakness of their neighbouring country.

Having talked to some (muslim) german soldiers who were deployed in Afghanistan for several years, I think the smartest option would have been to reinstate the king and set up some kind of "constitutional" monarchy (with some kind of senate consisting of delegates sent by the tribes instead of elected politicians). This way, we would have had a figure which had united the tribes, and a caucus through which the people in power (the tribal leaders) could have decided on the future of the nation. That way, we would have acknowledged and honoured the power of the tribes, founded an institution behind which the tribes could have united as a nation and created a government which could challenge the Taliban without having the flaw that it smelled entirely of infidel invaders.

Actually a pretty reasonable idea. Not exactly a democracy, but a good start towards one that could evolve into a stable, secular government.

[Pinkman]

First, "The Taliban" is not an organized group. Afghanistan is a tribal region and always has been. There is no sense of nation there.

Second, warlords run the place and always have. We aren't going to change that easily.

Third, we know how to do it but we haven't the patience. We want to shoot them until they are peaceful. Fighting for peace is a lot like f**king for virginity. Its never going to happen, no more than it would ever happen in America if we were invaded by a foreign power.

Fourth, we need to reach the children, the boys and girls, from birth until age 7. Thats where the real change will happen.

And we will reach the children. The problem is we want to reach the boys and the girls. And that means SCHOOL. Schools for girls and schoolgirls are routine targets for the taliban. the solution? Shoot the motherfuckers.

[texbrease]

Actually a pretty reasonable idea. Not exactly a democracy, but a good start towards one that could evolve into a stable, secular government.

The option of instating a monarchy in Afghanistan was only briefly on the table in 2001. The republican chickenhawks decided that it was preferable if people let rain rose blossoms in the streets, took each others hand and departed singing and dancing, all of them together, into a bright, democratic future. Just like Iraq, the place ended up like the mess we peaceniks predicted. And just like always, when the thing is lost and over, they will blame us for the mental retardation they inherited from their fathers.

[ClapekDodki]

Afghans decided themselves what kind of constitution they would have. The process involved extensive public consultation. In the end they chose a constitution much like what they had back in the 60s.

[juspimoubbodo]

Are you saying that the US coudda, shoudda, woudda won the war on Vietnan?

No. You cannot win a war if you cannot reach the enemy. We could reach the Viet Cong, but we couldn't reach the bulk of the NVA, or stop weapons from reaching them from China or the SOviets without sparking a war that wouldn't have been worth it.

The reason the defeat of the Viet Cong by 1970 is so important is because that's essentially what we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no conventional army with modern weapons backing the guerillas up. There's no Russia or China sending them weapons.

I remain unconvinced that the West has to offer more to the Afghanis than the Taliban have

That may just be true. But do you really want to go there? If we can't win their hearts and minds, all that's left to prevent them from sheltering Al Qaeda again is to make them terrified of the consequences if they do.

We do the hearts and minds thing because we don't want to deal with the problem the way we would have 100 years ago.

[ljq0AYOV]

The option of instating a monarchy in Afghanistan was only briefly on the table in 2001. The republican chickenhawks decided that it was preferable if people let rain rose blossoms in the streets, took each others hand and departed singing and dancing, all of them together, into a bright, democratic future. Just like Iraq, the place ended up like the mess we peaceniks predicted. And just like always, when the thing is lost and over, they will blame us for the mental retardation they inherited from their fathers.

Youre right mabus, we shouldve just instituted an iron fisted dicatorship that they didn't want instead of letting them pick their own government.

[Narkeere]

The Taliban are an organized group. Thats why they could overthrow the Afghan government and take power if it were not for foreign assistance. There are other groups involved - criminal groups, warlord forces, etc, but the Taliban are the only ones who could topple the regime.

Shoot them until they are peaceful? Dead people are very peaceful. Do you have a better way of making enemies "peaceful"?

We are not there to liberate their women or indoctrinate their children. Having knocked out their government in persuit of Al Qaeda we are now there to help the new government until they are able to handle the situation themselves.

I vaguely remember an article about a month back where I think a girl was killed or something of the sort, and while one Taliban group approved of it, another rejected all responsibility. So clearly the Taliban is not a monolithic group with one central administration. Looking at it that way, there may be different Taliban groups with different understandings, etc. It may be possible to negotiate with some but not with others. I remember one video awhile back where a journalist was filming Taliban in training camps, and some of them were saying they were just there to fight for their homes and families. Clearly not the clerical 'students' (English translation of the Arabic word 'taliban') we normally think of. So clearly the Taliban is no longer, if it ever was, a monolithic group.

[Qauunet]

Are you saying that the US coudda, shoudda, woudda won the war on Vietnan? And the result would have been, what? The chance to yell hip, hip hooray! We won! We won! The US lost 55,000 men dead and countless others maimed, but we won! And we get to keep tens of thousands of US troops stationed in Vietman at US taxpayers expense for eternity! We won!

We went to war with out the intention to win it. That was the Biggest problem. I don't think we needed to be there to begin with but once you decide to jump, you go there to win. Finally, so you believe we should ignore our agreements whenever we find it expediant to do so?

[new-nickname-zanovo]

I vaguely remember an article about a month back where I think a girl was killed or something of the sort, and while one Taliban group approved of it, another rejected all responsibility. So clearly the Taliban is not a monolithic group with one central administration. Looking at it that way, there may be different Taliban groups with different understandings, etc. It may be possible to negotiate with some but not with others. I remember one video awhile back where a journalist was filming Taliban in training camps, and some of them were saying they were just there to fight for their homes and families. Clearly not the clerical 'students' (English translation of the Arabic word 'taliban') we normally think of. So clearly the Taliban is no longer, if it ever was, a monolithic group.

Not every foot soldier would be a fanatic like the leadership. No doubt many join the Taliban to fight for their homes and families as in " your son comes and fights with us or we kill your whole family and blow up the house."

All Taliban groups may not always be on the same page, but they have a common goal - to rule Afghanistan again as they once did.