posted
I've asked this several times in the assorted Obama-troop-surge threads, with no response, so I'll try it here:
How would you define U.S. victory in Afghanistan?Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ild like to think when/once some sort of stable government controlling 60% of the country is established only requiring advisors and airsupport from NATO.
IP: Logged |
posted
Roughly speaking, initial goals: 1. Osama Bin Laden captured 2. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan destroyed 3. Lowered probability of Muslim terrorist attacks in the US Goals added by Bush during occupation: 4. Stable pro-Western government 5. Better human rights record including less torture and more freedom for women
Personally, I'm ok (or rather was ok) with the first three
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually both asked and answered this in multiple Obama threads going back well before the two surge threads currently in play.
I said this in a post responding to Ron back on October 10:
quote:From Me: I'll make a couple predictions. Pres. Obama can't pull out of Afghanistan. Even if he wanted to just call it quits and say screw it there, he couldn't. Even if the long term strategic importance of Afghanistan were somehow to be explained away, our presence in the region is far too important with relation to Pakistan. If we have even the slightest chance of getting them to take on rebels in places like Waziristan and the Swat Valley, we need to be putting on pressure from the west. Boots on the ground are going to be essential to proving long term stability to small villages, and thus to earning their long term loyalty, which we'll need if any lasting government, whatever it might look like, is to be formed.
Personally I think a long term government will have to involve some sort of elected official operating out of Kabul, and an agreement, whether formal or informal, with local warlords that turns them into some form of territorial governors. We're never going to be able to turn Afghanistan into the sort of democracy that the American people expect us to, maybe not even into the messy democracy that Iraq ended up with. Running that hell hole is going to have to be a hybrid of that an authoritarian rule, it's the only way to ensure that the forces in place are strong enough to combat Al Qaeda, and really, the Taliban isn't any more a fan of AQ than we are. They've intimated in the past that they wouldn't mind some sort of peace deal that involves fighting AQ. I think we might even get some bonuses out of the deal, like a changeover in the economy from poppies to some other agricultural product, and might even secure lasting social change in the form of female rights (well, they'll get to go to schools and not be treated as property, but that's progress).
This isn't going to end in the sort of smashing success that some people might be eying, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end with a structure in place that keeps AQ out, that we can live with, and that actually benefits the locals in some way. Obama knew that when he was running for office. In fact, he spent a lot of time telling war weary Democrats to suck it up, cause we're going to be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. I think the reason he's hesitating on sending in 40,000 troops automatically is one, where does he get them from? And two, he's possibly hoping to use personal prestige, and us being too tied up to try and shoehorn more EU troops into the field. I suspect that might be hard, since they barely even want the troops they have there to stay, and Bush really burned that bridge with his handling of the Iraq "coalition," but it's still worth trying.
Then later on I said this, which more concretely addresses what victory looks like:
quote:Me again: The media like to call Afghanistan 'the forgotten war,' which is maybe true in some ways. The facts haven't really changed that much in the last couple of years, unlike in Iraq where complicated shifting alliances and factions, combined with numerous military and political strategies really made getting an amateur grasp of the facts in their entirety, and to keep current, was somewhat difficult.
Afghanistan on the other hand really has the same issues it has had for years. They need an economy that doesn't center around poppy exports. We've been spending millions of dollars to try and irrigate and seed land for (I think) corn cultivation, and thus far it's actually working to some extent. Locals have even voluntarily destroyed poppy crops in many cases, but this runs counter to the fact that poppy growth has actually increased (after decreasing following the first few years of "occupation") in the last year or so.
They need infrastructure, but this is also difficult. We spend a crap ton of money rebuilding a massive modern highway running from Kandahar to Kabul, basically from their version of NYC (in importance) to their version of Washington DC (political center of power). A third of Afghanistan's population lives within relatively close proximity to the highway. It used to take two days to cover the 300 mile length of the road, and when the road was finished, it only took six hours. That's a huge improvement both for economic and defense purposes, but the road in the last couple years has become a major target for insurgents, who've blown so many holes in the road that travel time is more like eight hours now, and people are afraid to travel the road without an armed guard.
There's other infrastructure progress made as well, in the especially important region of Helmand province, where the majority of the heavy fighting is still taking place. Modern power plants have been installed in many of the villages and cities in the province, all in a hearts and minds battle to try and win local villagers over to the allied side, and in many places, it's working. But a lack of troops, despite a concerted international allied effort, makes it very hard to really guarantee safety to locals for more than a short period of time.
Governance is also a major issue. We've turned Kabul into an armed fortress in order to protect President Karzai, who by all accounts is at the head of a corruption ridden government that really doesn't even have that much power. We funnel a ton of money through a guy whose authority doesn't extend far beyond the city limits, which really makes him the best funded ruler of a small city-state as opposed to the democratically elected leader of a geographically large nation. Despite the initial gains made by allied troops and Northern Alliance (hey, remember those guys?) forces back in the early stages of the war, 99% of the country has returned to warlord control. A lot of policy advisers recognize that dethroning those warlords and replacing them with elected officials would not only be extremely difficult, but may in fact be counterproductive. Removing them means a protracted military effort in harsh territory that the enemy has a decided advantage in, and at the end of the day, the warlord himself would either be likely to win such an election, or the person replacing him is likely to be just as corrupt. The British had maharajahs; we're going to have Afghan warlords. We'll pay them off, tell them to play nice with Karzai, probably team up with them to fight AQ, and wag our fingers at them if we don't like how they treat the locals, but if that's the best you can do, you call it a win and walk off the field.
The real problem from an American perspective in winning Afghanistan is political rhetoric. The solution in Afghanistan is going to look a lot more like what we did during the cold war than what we SAY our current goals are. The problem is, Afghanistan in many ways IS ungovernable by western style democracy. Our form of government only works when put into place in a nation that already has some fundamental and complementary societal standards in place. Afghanistan doesn't have those (they have standards, just not complementary ones), not in the same way that Germany did when we installed a "modern" democracy in the 40s. But Americans have been promised, just like in Iraq, Afghanistan is going to be a democracy, we're going to beat that wily Taliban and their Al Qaeda friends (note the lack of depth in that characterization), we're going to spread freedom, cheeseburgers, and gender equality by golly. Now, anything less is going to appear to be a failure because of the conditioning the American public has had to what a victory will look like. Moving the goal posts back in this war isn't a bad idea, because our goals were unrealistic, outlandish, and ignorant in their initial formulation and presentation to the public.
Afghanistan is still a winnable war, so long as we realize what "winning" actually is there, and then commit the forces and the time necessary to do it.
posted
I agree with that. I would be okay with the first three. I would be delighted with 4 and 5, but I don't know that they are achievable by us and don't think that extending our engagement there in hopes of achieving them is sound. I don't think that war is a good tool for those goals.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps "The US, or a US-backed vassal regime, has some reasonable approximation of a monopoly on violence"? I don't know if that's achievable in less than thirty years, though. There's a lot of guns floating about those mountains.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even think we need to reach that point. Our two biggest strategic goals in the region are:
1. Pakistan remains a secure state. 2. Al Qaeda has no base of operations.
So long as Pakistan is on the offensive against Al Qaeda, and the Taliban can be corralled into fighting on our side, perhaps with American air support, then we've achieved our objectives, even if the situation isn't stable. We can carrot and stick the Taliban into playing ball eventually, hopefully.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Roughly speaking, initial goals: 1. Osama Bin Laden captured 2. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan destroyed 3. Lowered probability of Muslim terrorist attacks in the US Goals added by Bush during occupation: 4. Stable pro-Western government 5. Better human rights record including less torture and more freedom for women
1) Bin Laden is probably not in Afghanistan any more. Do we invade Pakistan? If he runs to Sudan or Somalia do we keep on invadiong?
2) Al-Queda in Afghanistan was destroyed. They were mostly in Pakistan, and want to come back as soon as we are gone. Again, the only way for the US to assure this doesn't happen is to invade Pakistan.
3)This can arguably be done by leaving the area immediately. Its not a good argument, but it can be made. The longer we stay and fight, the more Al-Queda we create.
4)Would you believe we are part of the way their. The government is mostly Pro-Western. Stable? Not so much. The argument has been made that our military presence actually weakens the government.
5)How can we force this on another country without stealing that country's sovereignty? The more we push for Equal Rights For All the more the male dominated politicians run away from our Pro-Western stand. Again, this is not something we can do via tanks and planes.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't need to invade Pakistan, we just need them to cooperate. They're actually doing something for once, so you could argue that we've already gone a long way towards achieving that objective.
I'm also not convinced that we create more adherents to Al Qaeda the longer we stay there. Not everyone we piss off over there runs out to join Al Qaeda. A lot of them join the Taliban. They aren't interchangeable. Reports that I've read say that Al Qaeda has been dealt a serious blow by our activities over there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Victory in Afghanistan, at this point, consists of maintaining security until the Karzai government is capable of doing so with, at most, drastically reduced US support.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth_Mauve: They're definitely problems, but they're not exactly my problems. #1 through #3 are the milestones that defined victory in Afghanistan initially and it is entirely possible that they are in the case of #1 failed or #3 counter-productive.
#4 and #5 are even less my goals, but are just part of the public record as but forward by Bush.
But that is how the case for the invasion was put forth (and extended) and I don't feel a need to move the goalposts. Sometimes things fail, there are defeats.
Lyrhawn: Ah, well some of us might not necessarily identify with NATO or even with the agendas of specific country governments for that matter.
But whatever, just note who you're referring to when you say "we" or "our."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was pretty clear that by "our" I meant, you know, the guys who are actually over there and the governments who sent them, and by extension the security of those nations.
You've yet again neglected an opportunity to explain what YOUR interest in the issue is, and what your criteria would look like. Or are you just hanging around throwing rocks?
Maybe after a few posts of saying "well that's not something that I support," you might actually tell us your position.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to say the establishment of a freely elected government that is free of corruption and coercion, but we don't have that in the US.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: Hey, calm down. I don't think a request for specificity should qualify as "throwing rocks".
Anyways, I didn't think it was clear. You used "we" three times in the 3:09 post and "our" twice, but it was never clear to me whether that meant the US, NATO, or even an amalgamation of views of the posters on this thread.
Since you're asking, I think the question of how to define a Canadian victory in Afghanistan would be different than the 5 point criteria I defined for the States.
For example, I don't think #3 on my initial list applies to us, IMHO Canadians have never been particularly convinced that Al-Qaeda is a threat to us. In fact, it was a pretty widely held opinion even at the time that fighting alongside the US would open us up to more retribution, not less. But we did it in solidarity and sympathy for the US after 9/11.
After the Iraq War, a Canadian presence in Iraq was also about maintaining good relations with the US after refusing to join the illegal invasion of Iraq.
So replace 3 with 3a (sympathy as allies) and 3b (concession after Iraq). Harper after his election may have signed on some variant of 4 and 5.
That would be my interpretation of a "Canadian" victory in Afghanistan. (I'm not sure if thats what you're after or whether you're after a "Mucus" victory in Afghanistan. But chill, either way)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I wanted to say the establishment of a freely elected government that is free of corruption and coercion, but we don't have that in the US.
It's a matter of degrees. You'll NEVER get rid of corruption TOTALLY but surely you can get rid it of substantially.
The extremist form of corruption is your average African country where nearly every government minister is interested in looting the treasury and enriching his kin.
So long as that can't happen in the West, it's all good.
The problem with Afghanistan is, simply, that the people are culturally very backwards.
They will not collectively come to understand any time soon why honest, non-corrupt democracy might benefit them. What incentive does your average afghan male who's in control of his own little corner of the country have to favor democracy if it means ceding his power? How can the people under his power --among them his children, relatives, kin -- come to be convinced that democracy is good for them if it means going against their protector?
Let the Taliban have Afghanistan, with the understanding that any tribe/region that hosts Al-Qaeda will be bombed the hell out of.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, they are clearly capable of being culturally not backwards. Cultural backwardness is a situation imposed on them rather than something inherent.
A symptom of the problem, not the problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely do not doubt their capacity for not being backwards.
But how can we possibly change them?
We would utterly have to change their customs and belief system totally.
It can be done if we partition the country into a small region and a big region, and into the small region place every Afghani male over the age of 16, and in the bigger region all the women and children. Then we could educate the women and children in Western progressive values and perhaps convince them to ditch Islam, all the while making sure the men in the smaller region never come back. Then, slowly, Afghanistan will become a pro-western, liberal democracy.
This could work.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not culturally backwards is not necessarily the same as pro-Western. We could leave them alone (outside of keeping them from injuring us). Our (by which I mean western culture) interference has gotten us and them into this mess.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bumping this thread during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan
quote:An American major-general was shot to death Tuesday in one of the bloodiest insider attacks of the long Afghanistan war when a gunman dressed as an Afghan soldier turned on allied troops, wounding about 15 including a German general and two Afghan generals.
The American officer was Maj.-Gen. Harold Greene, a U.S. official said. An engineer by training, Greene was on his first deployment to a war zone and was involved in preparing Afghan forces for the time when U.S.-coalition troops leave at the end of this year. He was the deputy commanding general, Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan.
quote:Greene was the highest-ranked American officer killed in combat in the nation's post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the highest-ranked officer killed in combat since 1970 in the Vietnam War.
Five major-generals were killed in Vietnam, the last being Maj.-Gen. John Albert Dillard, whose helicopter was shot down.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Fixed. It does say
quote:Greene was the highest-ranked American officer killed in combat in the nation's post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the highest-ranked officer killed in combat since 1970 in the Vietnam War.
Five major-generals were killed in Vietnam, the last being Maj.-Gen. John Albert Dillard, whose helicopter was shot down.
Huh. Not sure how I missed that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
