Rolling Afghanistan Thread

S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war...An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".
When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."
He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Click to expand...

oh round-up from the CSM re the attack mentioned earlier here
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
padraig (u.s.) said:
what I'm saying is this - if you decide on a new strategy you must give it both the time and the resources to have a shot at working before you abandon it. and once you do decide on a strategy, you can't deviate from it after a few months for political reasons. running a war based on concerns in Washington is just begging for disaster.
Click to expand...

couldn't agree more w this in particular, but w everything you say just now. think my phrasing must just be a bit foggy sometimes as i always end up re-posting to say 'agreed'!
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Dial said:
Speaking of Iran
Click to expand...

refer you back to the Iranian democracy (or Iranian elections, can't remember the name) thread where most of that was hashed out ad nauseam.

Ahmadinejad is a figurehead. I expect he's also a convient tool to use, stirring up the Americans & Israelis with Holocaust denial (whether or not he personally believes that stuff - he may - he/his handlers know the reaction it will inevitably provoke), ambiguous statements about nukes, etc.

Iran is run by the IRGC. they control the bio/chem weapons (& I think, tho I'm not sure, the nuke program), Quds Force, the Basij, etc. they have enormous economic power as well. I don't think the picture of them as religious warriors is inaccurate but clearly it's tempered by a strong desire to maintain their own power. the country is, again, a security state.

do some Iranians believe that the U.S. is, literally, Satan? sure. do most of them? I seriously doubt it. it's the same in the United States, where a noticeable minority of people literally believe in the Bible as the unadulterated word of God (& see Islam as devil worship or similar).

this is all in the Iran thread but - the country has an enormous drug problem (something like 4%, if I recall, of it's adult population on heroin), awful economy, a rapidly falling birth rate, a surplus of young people in their teens-20s from the post-revolution baby boom. another important thing is that their conventional military capabilites are not strong, leading to the focus on irregular warfare & the NBC weapons.

I have a hard time believing the answer is "constitutional monarchy", whatever that's supposed to mean, but alright, I guess. one thing is true - the Iranian regime is cagey, it's very wrong cast it as a bloc of wild-eyed fanatics. I think it's not unlikely that the security state will eventually consume itself - that's what security states do - with potentially disastrous consequences regionally & globally. but what do I know?
 
D

Dial

Well-known member
Iran is run by the IRGC. they control the bio/chem weapons (& I think, tho I'm not sure, the nuke program), Quds Force, the Basij, etc. they have enormous economic power as well. I don't think the picture of them as religious warriors is inaccurate but clearly it's tempered by a strong desire to maintain their own power. the country is, again, a security state.
Click to expand...
We meet in the middle, no? Neither holy warriors or cynical opportunists but something in between; which to describe fairly would require more of that detail (and nuance, I presume) that you've spoken of.

do some Iranians believe that the U.S. is, literally, Satan? sure. do most of them? I seriously doubt it. it's the same in the United States, where a noticeable minority of people literally believe in the Bible as the unadulterated word of God (& see Islam as devil worship or similar).
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about the 'Iranians' are we. We're talking about the view that some in the West hold about those in power: that the Revolutionary Guard - 'IRGC' - and clerics are merely engaged in cynical posturing. RMG claims that misreads a quite genuine and substantial Iranian sense of identity and mission. Like you, 'what would I know' but I would have to say that I find his reading far more plausible than your easy comparison with the US.

this is all in the Iran thread but - the country has an enormous drug problem (something like 4%, if I recall, of it's adult population on heroin), awful economy, a rapidly falling birth rate, a surplus of young people in their teens-20s from the post-revolution baby boom. another important thing is that their conventional military capabilites are not strong, leading to the focus on irregular warfare & the NBC weapons.
Click to expand...
And this all amounts to what exactly? I think you either need to join the dots for me, or refer me to something that does. Sorry mate, I'm not trying to be rude here, but the significance of these 'facts' is not self-apparent, beyond that Iran has serious issues to contend with.

I have a hard time believing the answer is "constitutional monarchy", whatever that's supposed to mean, but alright, I guess. one thing is true - the Iranian regime is cagey, it's very wrong cast it as a bloc of wild-eyed fanatics. I think it's not unlikely that the security state will eventually consume itself - that's what security states do - with potentially disastrous consequences regionally & globally. but what do I know?
Click to expand...
Well I guess that's the central point of disagreement, then isn't it. RMG says that a sense of mission is central to Iranian self-identity and that it is naive to believe they will cast it aside. He was very emphatic on these matters. You see it otherwise. He wasn't suggesting a literal constitutional monarchy but short handing the idea that there are two strains of idealism in Iran, and that, those in the West engaged in Iran, should be thinking about encouraging and emphasizing the Republican aspect of Iran's title, rather than the Islamic.
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
C'mon Dial--I'm still waiting to read your thoughts on the Afghan intervention! You don't need to write and essay, just a few sentences that stake out your position.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Interesting post, re the recent Canadian allegations about the ANSF:

It is no lie to say that homosexual behaviour is extensive and pervasive among members of the Afghan security forces. For a Western mentor it is literally an unavoidable part of life, found in all organizations and at all rank levels. And it should also be no surprise that Afghans' sexual preferences in this regard often incline towards youth and beauty. At times this approaches, and even descends into, outright pederasty. No question.

Pervasive, yes; rapacious, not necessarily. We're not talking in the main about police trucks kidnapping and driving off with young schoolboys here. THAT we'd know what to do about. It's the grayer shades of the issue that frustrate mentors. Local police are wealthy by community standards, when they're paid, at least; they have guns. They have power. Young men and teenagers gravitate to that, in any culture. We encourage the police to interact with their community, to cultivate friends and informants. Other young men work in their kitchen areas, and as cleaners. Others are constantly being recruited from the locals into the police organization itself. So young men and teenagers do hang around the police, constantly.

The question is how to discreetly determine when that's become inappropriate. You see a beardless boy you don't recognize spending a lot of time around the police station, or in a uniform two sizes too big for him. He's not unhappy or bearing any signs of abuse... no one's beating him, or treating him as obvious chattel. If you ask him how old he is, he likely couldn't tell you. So is he a sexual object for one of the officers, or does he have a legitimate right to be there? Or a little of both? And how do you investigate that fully in a combat environment without causing unnecessary offense to your comrades? Among mentors in Afghanistan, this constitutes a common dilemma... sometimes handled well, sometimes not well at all. But I've never seen the larger issue wilfully ignored, covered up or waved away....
Click to expand...
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
watched a Frontline special on Afghan last night, "Obama's War". really good, I thought. all the big guns; Pro-COIN Nagl, Kilcullen & Exum, Anti- Bacevich (eloquent as always) & some woman I didn't recognize from the State Dept. plus the inevitable bits w/Mullen & McChrystal, as well as a whole slew of Pakistani & Afghan generals, ministers, intelligence officials & so on. spends about 2/3 of the time out in the field w/a Marine company in Helmand Valley & the rest in Kabul, Peshawar, etc.

the stuff w/the Marines is, unsurprisingly, much more interesting (at least to me, partially b/c it's personally relevant of course) - watching junior officers/senior NCOs & the local Afghan (presumably Pashtun) men interact & struggle to communicate, seeing the Marines carrying out the drudgery of patrolling interspersed with ambushes, hearing the views & fears (most of which seem quite valid) of locals about the Taliban, etc.

anyway, the whole thing is available to watch for free here, if anyone's interested.

Exum on the Frontline piece
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
All kicking off in Pakistan then.

And see this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2009/10/why_gordon_thinks_hes_on_a_pro.html

The word is, from usually impeccable sources, that President Obama has decided to increase US forces in Afghanistan substantially. There was a further White House meeting on the subject today, but nothing has yet been announced officially in Washington. Meanwhile Britain has said it will send 500 more troops, and in the run up to this announcement, Whitehall has received reassurances from the president that the UK will not be left out on a limb.

According to some of those in the know, the US reinforcement could be as large as 45,000.
Click to expand...
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
scottdisco said:
and yes, re the tagging of Obama's war
Click to expand...

I think this is in direct response to the stance he came into office with, namely that we will focus more on Astan, esp. as we pull back in IQ, and prosecute the war/politics (inseparable w/r/t COIN) there more vigorously*. I don't think it's a political jab, esp. coming from PBS which is non-political & liberal if anything (or at least it regularly gets attacked for being such by conservative politicos). Frontline has pretty serious credibility. this isn't CNN docudrama nonsense we're talking here.

*this doesn't necessarily mean shooting more people or being more aggro so much as committing more resources in a better fashion, applying more effort, etc.

I was quite glad to hear Sen. Kerry's comments, not b/c he's arguing in favor of more troops but b/c they were the kind of thing you don't often hear out of the mouth of a Senator, that is, sensible. it doesn't surprise me that Kerry tacitly grasps some things about COIN seeing as he, unlike many prominent hawks (most prominently the last POTUS & VP), served in Vietnam. I esp. liked that he tied in more troops to strategic review, reassessment of goals, i.e.

I think General McChrystal is asking the questions about the underlying assumptions
Click to expand...

this to me has been the crucial point of the whole thing. McChrystal hasn't just been blindly demanding more troops - this is not Vietnam w/Westmoreland & the JSOC trying to bully more soldiers out of the civilians - he's been saying "look, for the mission you gave me, I need these resources. you can either give me the resources, or change the mission you assigned me." that is, change the political aims of the war. what's frustrating is that the civilians should be the ones doing reassessment of political goals, but if it takes a field commander to initiate it then so be it.

everything with the elections has been an embarrassment. Karzai is unreliable & doesn't have a political base, he's allied with all kinds of dubious drug/warlords, etc. I dunno if Abdullahx2 would be any better. the thing about COIN is that its a competition of ideas as much as anything - the insurgents by definition have a cause to offer, you have to have something to counter with. and we just don't.

oh, also re: the Frontline doc, one of my favorite parts was watching the Pakistani officials pulling looks of wide-eyed innocence. Haqqanis? in Pakistan? well, I never. and Amrullah Saleh's (who is, I believe, Tajik), frustration with the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
scottdisco said:
and yes, re the tagging of Obama's war
Click to expand...

padraig (u.s.) said:
I think this is in direct response to the stance he came into office with, namely that we will focus more on Astan, esp. as we pull back in IQ, and prosecute the war/politics (inseparable w/r/t COIN) there more vigorously*. I don't think it's a political jab, esp. coming from PBS which is non-political & liberal if anything (or at least it regularly gets attacked for being such by conservative politicos). Frontline has pretty serious credibility. this isn't CNN docudrama nonsense we're talking here.
Click to expand...

tbc i must admit me ^ re tagging was a generic punt toward anti-war types (in the specific case of Afghanistan) who have sometimes gleefully seized on this term "Obama's war" and use it in i think a slightly sneering, unbecoming way.

i didn't even read into PBS using it, my bad, i should pay more attention to linked articles and what Polystyle initially said!
very fair point and Frontline is a fine, fine programme.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
scottdisco said:
tbc i must admit me ^ re tagging was a generic punt toward anti-war types (in the specific case of Afghanistan) who have sometimes gleefully seized on this term "Obama's war" and use it in i think a slightly sneering, unbecoming way.
Click to expand...

ah, I see - I actually haven't seen the phrase in such a manner/context, but if it is being used with that emphasis then yes, by all means punt away.

thing is that I don't think Big O even has the political juice to stay the course over the long haul, let alone get into a greater commitment.

I wish all these people who are recently so fervently against the war & making facile, inaccurate comparisons to Vietnam (seriously, you can't move for hitting some talking head doing this these days) had been giving a shit about all this back in, you know, 2005 or whatever. it's only been going on for nearly a f**king decade, after all, and going badly for most of that. what also bugs me is hearing talk shifting to emphasize more training of Afghan forces. we've been training them for 8 years, they ain't gonna get much better. it sounds like a recipe for American soldiers to traipse around getting shot at only to have whoever's POTUS come Inauguration Day, 2013 decide that oh yeah, we're finally getting out.
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
as usual P concisely identifies the main thrusts, and your prediction has a prescient air to it for me.

my fear is that when ISAF nations start to draw down - this seems inevitable, w Canada for instance having their initial round terminate in 2011 i believe, although i don't know if they will then re-negotiate anything else - they will leave Afghanistan in clearly a better position than when the Taliban were in charge, but nascent Afghan institutions will not be robust enough. (tbc, i don't know anything about the status of ISAF contributing nations going forward in terms of which ones have publicly thought ahead long enough to be able to say 'we'll be in X district through 2013, have no fear' or not. so i could well be chatting out of my arse ;) )

i think it's unlikely the (admittedly re-energised) Taliban - w allies such as a different-from-their-pre-9/11-vintage HiG & perhaps other nasty misogynists - will be able to again exercise national control but we know from their attitudes to medicine and education etc, that in districts where they could take over again, the implications of this for Afghan civilians are clearly monstrously, disastrously catastrophic.

(tbc, just because i am not acknowledging above the pervasive issues of contemporary corruption, the killing of civilians in Nato strikes, contemporary allegations of rights abuses by the ANP, age-old hunger and age-old social conservatism in the country doesn't mean i am some starry-eyed armchair warmonger, just that a costs and benefits analysis - plus the Afghans themselves, in countless polls - has demonstrated irrefutably that the worst elements of this insurgency remain a far, far worse proposition than Karzai and some of his shady hoop-jumping w unpleasant bods.)

also w respect to P and Vim and Polystyle in particular - the COIN/military specialists on this thread AFAICT (i pay far less attention to, say, the boards at Abu M than i do to the aid worker reports at the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee) - i am aware the main international driver in Afghanistan, and her individual ISAF allies, have military objectives there, and although it would be nice if the USA's main purpose in Afghanistan was to improve the lot of Afghan schoolgirls, there are military missions to be had there, i know that.
denying jihadis time and space in the borderlands, and unseating their Islamist landlords has clearly had positive benefits for Afghanistan (to understate massively), granted, but, yes, i am aware, that my pov on the Afghan intervention is a little bit different from, say, P's, which is going to be different again from Dial's, which is etc etc etc.

i don't want to imply i have a reckless attitude toward the lives of armed forces and authority figures in Afghanistan and are only concerned for improvements in the lives of Afghan civilians in total (though that is my main concern tbh).
nor am i advocating some endless 'safe havens' kite-flying mission, where the USA sends her boys off on endless occupations in, say, the next Yemen, far from it.

BTW P, i have a car-crash rubber necking attitude to some seriously dubious sites sometimes. the "Obama's war" asides i meant in the contexts i'd alluded to were from dicks like Counterpunch, that sort of shower. you probably dislike anti-semitism as much as me, so trust me when i say: don't bother visiting them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top