WARS UPDATE

THE MIDDLE EAST +

EUROPE +

SUB SAHARAN AFRICA +

ASIA +

THE AMERICAS +

INTERNATIONAL +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Afghanistan Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Why Who
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Things Don't Look Very Good At All

October 30, 2009: U.S. political leaders are dithering on the decision to send 40,000 additional troops requested by military commanders. It's more politically useful, in the U.S., for Afghanistan related problems to just go away, or at least require less American money and troops. But Afghanistan won't go away. For thousands of years, Afghanistan has been a refuge for raiders and a staging (and recruiting) area for invaders headed for Pakistan and northern India. But now the threat is hordes of fierce tribesmen, but rather Pushtun heroin smugglers and terrorists. Afghanistan's neighbors are frantically trying to keep this threat out, and are not succeeding. The drug smugglers are moving through Central Asia, Iran and Pakistan, and the heroin is showing up in more places, more cheaply. The terrorists are still operating their training camps, and the graduates are still being caught in the West. The more graduates there are, the greater the probability some of those planned attacks will come off.

Casualties for foreign troops this month have been hitting record highs (nearly 70) and the annual totals are headed for 450. This is still lower than the Iraq peak of nearly 700 killed per 100,000 troops per year. The Afghan loss rates are also less than a third of those experienced in World War II or Vietnam. Even with the many impressive explosions, the Taliban and drug gang gunmen cannot hurt the foreign troops in a militarily successful way. For example, the Russians, during their 1979-89 war, had far fewer Afghan allies, and suffered a casualty rate three times what the NATO and U.S. troops are enduring now. While the Russians had most of the population against them, the U.S. has most of Afghan aiding them (against the few Pushtuns who want to restore Taliban rule, and the establishment of a narco-state that will fund itself with heroin sales.) Russia never had a realistic expectation of defeating the rebellious (against Afghan communists trying to run the country) tribes. The U.S. does, because most of the tribes are opposed to the Taliban and the drug gangs. But religious fanaticism and drug money are powerful weapons, especially since the Taliban and drug lords are fighting for their very existence. Another advantage the U.S. has is that the Taliban had a safe base in Pakistan during the 1980s, and billions of dollars a year in aid from other Moslem states (mainly Saudi Arabia) and the United States. There is a much smaller base area in Pakistan now, and it is in the process of being shut down now by the Pakistani army. If you look at this war from the viewpoint of the enemy, things don't look very good at all.

Afghans don't mind holding a runoff vote for the presidential election, as foreigners are paying for it (nearly $400 million), and most of that money goes to Afghans. It cost about $67 per vote during the last election. During that first round of voting, 40 percent of voters (5.7 million) turned out, but at least 23 percent of those votes turned out to be fraudulent. One advantage the foreigners have with paying for the election is that they have a good opportunity to detect fraud. There was lots to detect the first time around, and there will probably still be a lot of it when the second vote takes place on November 7th. Weather (the snows have started) and continued Taliban intimidation will probably reduce the voter turnout rate even more. Foreign officials are threatening to halt their aid for the vote, because local officials refuse to crack down sufficiently on the corruption. The locals are calling the bluff of the foreigners, and the foreigners will probably blink.

October 29, 2009: An Israeli firm has agreed to supply German troops in Afghanistan with Heron (similar to U.S. Predator) UAVs by early next year. UAVs have proved to be a decisive device in the fight against the Taliban and drug gangs. There are not nearly as many UAVs in Afghanistan as there were in Iraq, and NATO/U.S. commanders are hustling to change that.

October 28, 2009: Taliban gunmen attacked a UN compound in Kabul, killing five UN employees.

October 27, 2009: A major Western newspaper publicized the rumor that Afghan president Hamid Karzai's brother Ahmed  has been getting payments (for information and cooperation) from the CIA for the past eight years. This kind of exposure hurts the CIA effort to get information, especially from someone like the president's brother (who is all deep into government corruption and the drug trade.) But American newspapers have been having a hard time economically, and every hot headline helps. Collateral damage is not news.

October 26, 2009: Three U.S. helicopters crashed. One during a raid in the mountains, while elsewhere two choppers collided. Eleven soldiers and three civilians died. In the last two days, twenty U.S. troops have died from roadside bombs and helicopter crashes.

October 25, 2009: The Taliban got their fans and paid protesters in Kabul to turn out for another anti-foreigner rally. This is all for the foreign media (many of the banners and signs are in English, the universal media language). The reason for the rally was an invented incident of Western soldiers burning a copy of the Koran during a raid. No one asks for proof in cases like this, and such charges are often used to gather a mob to murder a local non-Moslem who has offended someone important. Afghans love to mix religion and violence.

October 24, 2009: In the south, four civilians were killed when their car drove too close to an ISAF convoy and the foreign soldiers opened fire. As in Iraq, using suicide bombers in cars is a popular tactic, and locals either don't get the word about how to approach a military convoy, or simply try to beat the odds by trying to speed past the troops. Elsewhere in the south, two American soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb, while a Danish soldier was killed in a firefight.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article WARPLANES: Mi-17 Becomes NATO Standard

Make A Comment     View Comments (7)
Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Bob Cortez       10/30/2009 7:01:17 AM
Hoh, Hoh Hoh.  I think the facts put the lie to his resignation letter.  He specifically said that the place was not part of the threat, rather than the staging area it was and probably will be.
 
One poor soul complained about my negative comments when I asked: Hoh or cheap Hoh?  The point in he may have done wonders, but he has not written on his experience by his feelings, like a member of a touchy feely group.
 
In intelligence I go with Stendhal: never describe a face you haven't seen or a conversation which you haven't heard.  He fails that test.  He want his purity of purpose rather than compassion for the people on the ground.  In that he is much more Trotsky than Mother Teresa.
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       10/30/2009 8:06:46 AM
The way I see it is that coalition military force (US in the first place) and Notrhen Alliance defeated Taliban in 2002. Taliban suffered total defeat and only small scattered resistance remained in place.  Military can not chase every single  bandit  in such  big country,  it is a police business.

I have no doubt that military can do that again. 

Afghanistan had couple of relatively quiet  years until, I think, 2005. Sufficient progress has not been made in that period on Afghan side. The country remained in a state of chaos and it was the government failure for the major part. Taliban took advantage of the situation and launched campaign to retake the country.
 
If the military defeats Taliban again, will the cycle repeat itself once more ? I believe that Afghans need to show little more progress on their side before the other countries send reinforcements, and give the reason to believe that the cycle won't repeat again. 
 
Quote    Reply

Amtracker       10/30/2009 10:06:04 AM
Having been in Afghanistan for the past eight years, without having a clear and concise strategy is hardly dithering. I appreciate the fact that the administration is taking the time to thoroughly analyze the situation and develop a strategy that takes into account both our military and political goals. Repeating a GOP talking point on the article diminishes your credibility and makes me question the site as a whole. I sincerely hope this doesn't become a trend.    
 
Quote    Reply

Vulture       10/31/2009 10:24:23 AM
AMtracker said
"Repeating a GOP talking point on the article diminishes your credibility and makes me question the site as a whole. I sincerely hope this doesn't become a trend.    "
 
What GOP "Talking point" ?
 btw do you also question the truth and facts that support it just because it does not match YOUR political view?
 
 
/I find it strange that people show up and "question the site" , when it is used around the world as citation for various military news events.  are they questioning the facts, or the journalistic observations of what those facts imply?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       10/31/2009 11:35:32 AM
Having been in Afghanistan for the past eight years, without having a clear and concise strategy is hardly dithering. I appreciate the fact that the administration is taking the time to thoroughly analyze the situation and develop a strategy that takes into account both our military and political goals. Repeating a GOP talking point on the article diminishes your credibility and makes me question the site as a whole. I sincerely hope this doesn't become a trend.   

 

Your critique misses the mark in a few areas by rehashing the old Republican vs. Democrat argument. 

 

The past eight years has suffered from having no clear strategy or an improper one.  When George H.W. Bush 41 took office he once showed surprise that Afghanistan was still a trouble spot.  Clinton?s interest was in domestic policy so the only issue that got his attention in Afghanistan was bin Laden. 

Rumsfeld wanted to transform the army into a lean quick hitting force that could topple tyrants, and rapidly exit without becoming embroiled in the tar baby of nation building.  Afghanistan and Iraq showed the mistake in his strategic vision and it took General Petraeus to show that a new strategy that integrated the DOD, Department of State, and many other agencies was required to bring short term security and a long term commitment to transforming ineffective and corrupt local governments.

 

The defeat of the Soviets found Afghanistan with no functioning police force.  The normal corrupt National and local governments left the population insecure.  The Taliban offered hope when they began to bring stability and sharia law.  Their brand of order quickly wore thin and their defeat by the war lords assisted by the CIA was welcomed.

 

The rebuilding of Afghanistan after 2001 required many years and much money.  This exercise in nation building did not fit the Rumsfeld model or that of the Department of State either so Afghanistan was declared secure and the U.S. went on to duplicate this failed strategy in Iraq. 

 

The needs in Afghanistan now are a strong police force ? that will take ten to twenty years to build, a less corrupt central government ? no reasonable time frame exists for success here ? and continued foreign assistance to rebuild the economy once the Taliban has been neutralized.

 

The dithering that this article refers to is whether to add the 40,000 troops now and hope for at best a short term ? several years ? of reduced Taliban insurrection, and then following the Rumsfeld model of getting out, taking the hand off the bicycle, and letting the Afghans determine their own fate.  Of course the argument against this course is the example of the 1990?s with the growth of the Taliban and their symbiotic relationship with al Qaeda bin Laden.

 

The praised ?strategic review? of President Obama and his administration is hardly an example of his great insight.  His ?dithering? is more a function of politics.  He has a left to placate that is isolationist in the extreme.  On his right is an element that pushes for a military decision with a reluctance to embrace the time and expense of the nation building concept. 

 

Sending 40,000 troops is only one element of a strategy to consider, but President Obama has made no speech or statement that indicates that he has a clear understanding of the difficulty of the situation in Afghanistan and what course he will take the nation on and what political cost he is willing to accept.

 

President Bush was widely criticized on 2006 for not pushing a new strategic review and initiative in Iraq, but in the end it was only nine months from the Samara mosque bombing till he ditched Rumsfeld and brought in General Petraeus.  President Obama doesn?t need a lot of time for further strategic review.  He is wrestling with a decision that is purely political and one that will define his presidency and the future of Afghanistan and our nation. 

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/2/2009 11:38:01 AM
This is bs. Pakistan has no intention of shutting down any TAQAA forces that are aligned with it.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/2/2009 12:07:26 PM

Having been in Afghanistan for the past eight years, without having a clear and concise strategy is hardly dithering. I appreciate the fact that the administration is taking the time to thoroughly analyze the situation and develop a strategy that takes into account both our military and political goals. Repeating a GOP talking point on the article diminishes your credibility and makes me question the site as a whole. I sincerely hope this doesn't become a trend.   



 

Your critique misses the mark in a few areas by rehashing the old Republican vs. Democrat argument. 


 


The past eight years has suffered from having no clear strategy or an improper one.  When George H.W. Bush 41 took office he once showed surprise that Afghanistan was still a trouble spot.  Clinton?s interest was in domestic policy so the only issue that got his attention in Afghanistan was bin Laden. 


Rumsfeld wanted to transform the army into a lean quick hitting force that could topple tyrants, and rapidly exit without becoming embroiled in the tar baby of nation building.  Afghanistan and Iraq showed the mistake in his strategic vision and it took General Petraeus to show that a new strategy that integrated the DOD, Department of State, and many other agencies was required to bring short term security and a long term commitment to transforming ineffective and corrupt local governments.


 


The defeat of the Soviets found Afghanistan with no functioning police force.  The normal corrupt National and local governments left the population insecure.  The Taliban offered hope when they began to bring stability and sharia law.  Their brand of order quickly wore thin and their defeat by the war lords assisted by the CIA was welcomed.


 


The rebuilding of Afghanistan after 2001 required many years and much money.  This exercise in nation building did not fit the Rumsfeld model or that of the Department of State either so Afghanistan was declared secure and the U.S. went on to duplicate this failed strategy in Iraq. 


 


The needs in Afghanistan now are a strong police force ? that will take ten to twenty years to build, a less corrupt central government ? no reasonable time frame exists for success here ? and continued foreign assistance to rebuild the economy once the Taliban has been neutralized.


 


The dithering that this article refers to is whether to add the 40,000 troops now and hope for at best a short term ? several years ? of reduced Taliban insurrection, and then following the Rumsfeld model of getting out, taking the hand off the bicycle, and letting the Afghans determine their own fate.  Of course the argument against this course is the example of the 1990?s with the growth of the Taliban and their symbiotic relationship with al Qaeda bin Laden.


 


The praised ?strategic review? of President Obama and his administration is hardly an example of his great insight.  His ?dithering? is more a function of politics.  He has a left to placate that is isolationist in the extreme.  On his right is an element that pushes for a military decision with a reluctance to embrace the time and expense of the nation building concept. 


 


Sending 40,000 troops is only one element of a strategy to consider, but President Obama has made no speech or statement that indicates that he has a clear understanding of the difficulty of the situation in Afghanistan and what course he will take the nation on and what political cost he is willing to accept.


 


President Bush was widely criticized on 2006 for not pushing a new strategic review and initiative in Iraq, but in the end it was only nine months from the Samara mosque bombing till he ditched Rumsfeld and brought in General Petraeus.  President Obama doesn?t need a lot of time for further strategic review.  He is wrestling with a decision that is purely political and one that will define his presidency and the future of Afghanistan and our nation. 




 
Thank you for the excellent analysis.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy