[vintsqyuid]

Finally the media decides to remember Afghanistan for at least one week (because Petraeus is there).

By Michael Gerson
Thursday, March 10, 2011

HELMAND PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN

Until five months ago, Forward Operating Base Jackson, in Sangin, was an island in a Taliban sea. Patrol bases were ringed by Taliban flags, about 100 to 200 meters out, to dramatize the state of siege. Everywhere beyond the main road was an enemy sanctuary. Each spring the fertile land along the Helmand River bloomed red with poppies from horizon to horizon. Thirty-five drug-processing labs helped fund the Taliban.
In October, about 1,500 Marines arrived, took the offensive, pushed into the territory beyond the roads - and sustained the highest casualties of the Afghan war. During the first three months of operations in Sangin, more than two dozen Marines died; 150 others were wounded.

But the Marines, as usual, got the better of the killing - counting more than 400 insurgent dead. In the end they owned the ground. War-weary locals have begun cooperating and providing information. Morale of the Afghan army and police has improved. Farmers are being given other seeds to replace poppies. Though the region is not fully pacified, the Marines have quickly established themselves as the toughest tribe in this part of the Taliban homeland.

The Afghan surge - involving about 40,000 additional coalition forces and more than 70,000 new recruits to the Afghan army and police - has made swift progress. And these advances are accumulating into a strategy. Coalition forces are moving north up the Helmand River valley, connecting their gains to Kandahar next door, hoping to expand the security bubble toward Kabul.
Michael Gerson - Taliban is losing its advantage in Afghanistan

[Queueftof]

As much as I'd like us to just leave right now, I'd love to see this translate into momentum for a victory.

I guess we'll see what happens over the next 6 months.

[Seesspoxy]

Woodward's book, "Obama's War", actually did a great job of explaining the thought processes of all our military commanders and the White House's thoughts and conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conclusions are that up till 2003, we could have won and beaten the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but neglecting it for 6 years allowed them too large a foothold. Now the best we can do is to make them ineffective and to provide enough training to the Afghan government and police to keep them under control.

[UFJon]

Woodward's book, "Obama's War", actually did a great job of explaining the thought processes of all our military commanders and the White House's thoughts and conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conclusions are that up till 2003, we could have won and beaten the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but neglecting it for 6 years allowed them too large a foothold. Now the best we can do is to make them ineffective and to provide enough training to the Afghan government and police to keep them under control.

I'm proud of you ConLib, you said that without using the B word.

[itsmycock]

Conclusions are that up till 2003, we could have won and beaten the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but neglecting it for 6 years allowed them too large a foothold. Now the best we can do is to make them ineffective and to provide enough training to the Afghan government and police to keep them under control.

That's retarded.

If we could have "won" in '03 we can still win today.

It's not like al Q and the Taliban have improved strategically, tactically, and technologically soooooooo much in the last few years that their defeat is now impossible.

Recent operations have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that if we want to take the Taliban's foothold we can do so pretty much at will.

The only determining factor is whether or not President Obama and his sucessor will leave troops in Astan long enough to follow through on the nation building bullshit.

Much like Vietnam, and defeat the United States sufferes will be a result of politics (both Bush's and Obama's).

As far as I'm concerned though, we won the war in Afghanistan in about three weeks. Everything that's come after have been operations other than war (except perhaps for what's been going on the past few months) with an eye toward building up that shithole. Nation building is not war.

I like Woodward generally, and I haven't read this book, so maybe you're not adequately explaining what he's said. But if your comment is an acurate synopsis of the book then Woodward seriously dropped the ball.

[Pypeassesty]

That's retarded.

If we could have "won" in '03 we can still win today.

It's not like al Q and the Taliban have improved strategically, tactically, and technologically soooooooo much in the last few years that their defeat is now impossible.

Recent operations have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that if we want to take the Taliban's foothold we can do so pretty much at will.

The only determining factor is whether or not President Obama and his sucessor will leave troops in Astan long enough to follow through on the nation building bullshit.

Much like Vietnam, and defeat the United States sufferes will be a result of politics (both Bush's and Obama's).

As far as I'm concerned though, we won the war in Afghanistan in about three weeks. Everything that's come after have been operations other than war (except perhaps for what's been going on the past few months) with an eye toward building up that shithole. Nation building is not war.

I like Woodward generally, and I haven't read this book, so maybe you're not adequately explaining what he's said. But if your comment is an acurate synopsis of the book then Woodward seriously dropped the ball.

If you wish to call all of our top military retarded, that makes your thoughts not worth a damn. Not only Gates, but every top military man in Afghanistan, in the cabinet and the Chief of Staffs disagree with you. You might try doing some reading about the current situation in Afghanistan, and by those that really know, instead of running off at the mouth.

As I said, our military leaders say that we cannot actually bet the Taliban in Afghanistan, as they are now too deeply entrenched, and the locals know they'll be around when the US goes home, as we must at some point.

The best our combat tested military brass says, we can make them ineffective, but we can no longer beat them, nor win. Well, actually, they say that with somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 more men on the ground there, for several years, we could win. They also say that is impossible.

[gamblingstats]

As much as I'd like us to just leave right now, I'd love to see this translate into momentum for a victory.

I guess we'll see what happens over the next 6 months.

Yup. I'm with you on those point.

I'm proud of you ConLib, you said that without using the B word.

Me too.

[yatrahnualenu]

Finally the media decides to remember Afghanistan for at least one week (because Petraeus is there).



Michael Gerson - Taliban is losing its advantage in Afghanistan

When it comes to Afganistan, you can color me a big pessimist. Because if the Afgans really wanted "what we wanted" they would have damn well got it by now. How long we been there? The fact that this tribal State has not risen from the ashes should be something we need to think about. The lack of desire among the majority throws a monkey wrench in the gears of progress.

What cha wanta bet that poppies will still be grown in vast quanities? This would be like telling the folks in northern Ca. to stop growing pot and start growing vegetables to sell in place of the more profitable weed. With poppy being so much more profitable than any other crop, don't expect folks to just stop growing it. It won't happen.

The only way you could stop the poppy crop is to tell em to plow under the current crops, and we would pay them the market price for the poppies they plowed under. You know, like we used to do with cotton here in the South! We were paid to plow under a certain amount of acreage as to keep the prices up.

[Pete789]

If you wish to call all of our top military retarded, that makes your thoughts not worth a damn. Not only Gates, but every top military man in Afghanistan, in the cabinet and the Chief of Staffs disagree with you. You might try doing some reading about the current situation in Afghanistan, and by those that really know, instead of running off at the mouth.

As I said, our military leaders say that we cannot actually bet the Taliban in Afghanistan, as they are now too deeply entrenched, and the locals know they'll be around when the US goes home, as we must at some point.

The best our combat tested military brass says, we can make them ineffective, but we can no longer beat them, nor win. Well, actually, they say that with somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 more men on the ground there, for several years, we could win. They also say that is impossible.

I would say it is not impossible to beat or kill out the Taliban. It could be done, although not under the current model. To do this, you would have to wage an all out war, instead of this police action we find ourselves in. And you would have to invade the tribal areas of Pakistan, in a really big way. With ground troops.

Any of you guys serve in Nam? This is reminding me of that cluster fuck. Anyone recall taking some of those hills in Nam, at great lose of life, just to walk away and then retake it again the next month? No, when you give the enemy a place to run to to find a place to lick their wounds, get resupplied and regroup, you are engaging in a war based upon THEIR rules. And don't be surprised when you go home with your tail between you legs, while wasting so many young American lives.

BTW, the LAST war that Congress did their duty and declared, we actually won! It's just the wars declared by only the Pres. that we have tended to lose. Do ya think there's any connection here?

Once the US gets back to the Constitutional based model of declaring war, perhaps we stand a chance of finally winning another one! We can win wars, we just can't win these "non declared" wars, or so it seems. But we can waste so many young lives, for what? NOTHING. That is the real crime here. And it should be a hanging offense, but isn't.

There was such outrage over the Viet Nam war, that we even had to stop drafting our soldiers. The public wanted no part in being sent to lose lives for NOTHING. So, we got us an all volunteer armed forces, as to avoid the likes of the Viet Nam era protesters. Plus, the elites no longer had to pull strings to get their own kids exempt from death that war brings. We can then send just mostly folks from the less fortunate families, who are looking for a leg up in the American Dream. The Cons and even some Libs love this new way. What better folks to send to protect your vast fortunes than the common rabble? Hell, they would not amount to much anyways, this common rabble. In fact, the best thing their lives can do is to insure the elites don't have to die, which they would if we had a fair draft in place again.

Not only do the rich elites live off of the labor of the common rabble, but the common rabble even dies, so the elites don't have to! Gotta love it! If this did not originate from the Repubs, I would be in shock. And if it did not originate from the Repubs, hell is about to freeze over. This is what those folks do. Their actions have alway been the "tell".

[casinobonusfrees]

Jviehe is confused.

We're still playing whack-a-mole in Afghanistan, patting ourselves on the back when we concentrate our efforts in one region, take control, only to find that 5 other regions are back in Taliban control because they don't get beat, they just scramble elsewhere.

It's like the claims that "we beat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which is why there are less than 200 of them reportedly there", but in reality they fled to Pakistan where they have a safe haven.

America is stuck thinking like a neo-con still in Afghanistan with this bullshit "we keep turning corners over there" mentality.

Maybe it says something about America's degrading math skills since how many corners do you need to turn before you realize you're actually going in a circle?

[Aswdwdfg]

Jviehe is confused.

We're still playing whack-a-mole in Afghanistan, patting ourselves on the back when we concentrate our efforts in one region, take control, only to find that 5 other regions are back in Taliban control because they don't get beat, they just scramble elsewhere.

It's like the claims that "we beat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which is why there are less than 200 of them reportedly there", but in reality they fled to Pakistan where they have a safe haven.

America is stuck thinking like a neo-con still in Afghanistan with this bullshit "we keep turning corners over there" mentality.

Maybe it says something about America's degrading math skills since how many corners do you need to turn before you realize you're actually going in a circle?

What do you mean "we're"?

[altosburg]

I would say it is not impossible to beat or kill out the Taliban. It could be done, although not under the current model. To do this, you would have to wage an all out war, instead of this police action we find ourselves in. And you would have to invade the tribal areas of Pakistan, in a really big way. With ground troops.

Any of you guys serve in Nam? This is reminding me of that cluster fuck. Anyone recall taking some of those hills in Nam, at great lose of life, just to walk away and then retake it again the next month? No, when you give the enemy a place to run to to find a place to lick their wounds, get resupplied and regroup, you are engaging in a war based upon THEIR rules. And don't be surprised when you go home with your tail between you legs, while wasting so many young American lives.

BTW, the LAST war that Congress did their duty and declared, we actually won! It's just the wars declared by only the Pres. that we have tended to lose. Do ya think there's any connection here?

Once the US gets back to the Constitutional based model of declaring war, perhaps we stand a chance of finally winning another one! We can win wars, we just can't win these "non declared" wars, or so it seems. But we can waste so many young lives, for what? NOTHING. That is the real crime here. And it should be a hanging offense, but isn't.

There was such outrage over the Viet Nam war, that we even had to stop drafting our soldiers. The public wanted no part in being sent to lose lives for NOTHING. So, we got us an all volunteer armed forces, as to avoid the likes of the Viet Nam era protesters. Plus, the elites no longer had to pull strings to get their own kids exempt from death that war brings. We can then send just mostly folks from the less fortunate families, who are looking for a leg up in the American Dream. The Cons and even some Libs love this new way. What better folks to send to protect your vast fortunes than the common rabble? Hell, they would not amount to much anyways, this common rabble. In fact, the best thing their lives can do is to insure the elites don't have to die, which they would if we had a fair draft in place again.

Not only do the rich elites live off of the labor of the common rabble, but the common rabble even dies, so the elites don't have to! Gotta love it! If this did not originate from the Repubs, I would be in shock. And if it did not originate from the Repubs, hell is about to freeze over. This is what those folks do. Their actions have alway been the "tell".

I'll answer what I 'bolded'. All current US military leaders agree that we could actually kill the Taliban out of existence. All it would take would be 80,000 to 100,000 more solders on the ground there, and we'd also have to attack Pakistan to finish. Other than that, our goal is to make them ineffective, by helping to control major areas while helping to build the Afghan military and police force.

[gariharrr]

I'll answer what I 'bolded'. All current US military leaders agree that we could actually kill the Taliban out of existence. All it would take would be 80,000 to 100,000 more solders on the ground there, and we'd also have to attack Pakistan to finish. Other than that, our goal is to make them ineffective, by helping to control major areas while helping to build the Afghan military and police force.

Naaah... we could do it in a couple of weeks with less troops on the ground.

[quorceopporce]

"We are very tolerant people but now our tolerance has run out."

An emotional Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday told international troops to "stop their operations in our land", his strongest remarks yet over mistaken killings of civilians.
Karzai's comments came after a week in which a relative of his was killed in a raid by foreign forces and he rejected an apology by the US commander of troops General David Petraeus for the deaths of nine children in a NATO strike.

End operations in Afghanistan, Karzai tells NATO

Who is losing what?

[ibupronec]

I wonder what will eventually cause us to remove Karzai? Or Afghanis to do it themselves. Obviously he has been corrupted by power.

[BoomBully]

I wonder what will eventually cause us to remove Karzai? Or Afghanis to do it themselves. Obviously he has been corrupted by power.

Karzai would not last a week without US power behind him. We could rid ourselves of him tomorrow by 2:00pm simply by letting his enemies get to him

[AndyPharmc]

I wonder what will eventually cause us to remove Karzai? Or Afghanis to do it themselves. Obviously he has been corrupted by power.

Unless Karzai will manage to secure protection of Chinese and interest the war-lords, Afghanis will remove him as soon as NATO will get out of there.

On the other hand, US obviously finds it difficult to secure loyatly of another puppet it can put in charge of Afghanistan so it has to stick with Karzai...

[Gilowero]

Karzai would not last a week without US power behind him. We could rid ourselves of him tomorrow by 2:00pm simply by letting his enemies get to him

Probably true, but if the US did that, who would replace him, and how would they then view us? Better? More reliable? Or not?

[jokilewqs]

Unless Karzai will manage to secure protection of Chinese and interest the war-lords, Afghanis will remove him as soon as NATO will get out of there.

On the other hand, US obviously finds it difficult to secure loyatly of another puppet it can put in charge of Afghanistan so it has to stick with Karzai...

Doesnt seem like we have much control of Karzai.

[55TRATTERENRY]

Jviehe is confused.

We're still playing whack-a-mole in Afghanistan, patting ourselves on the back when we concentrate our efforts in one region, take control, only to find that 5 other regions are back in Taliban control because they don't get beat, they just scramble elsewhere.

It's like the claims that "we beat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which is why there are less than 200 of them reportedly there", but in reality they fled to Pakistan where they have a safe haven.

America is stuck thinking like a neo-con still in Afghanistan with this bullshit "we keep turning corners over there" mentality.

Maybe it says something about America's degrading math skills since how many corners do you need to turn before you realize you're actually going in a circle?

Though we normally don't agree I believe you are speaking close to the truth of the matter in this regard.