Comments on: An Afghan ‘Surge’ no sure Winner

By: joel

joel — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:05:17 +0000

The war in afghanistan is the leftover of a previous failed policy: diverting troops to Iraq.
If uprooting the Taliban and driving them to Pakistan was not enought, then we must ask why.
The answer is pretty clear: Pakistan personel is working as the rear guard of the Taliban.
What to do about it?
Since Pakistan is and was a very bad choice for an ally, given their visceral support for the Taliban, we must reconsider the posibility that for usa and india, a joint task force to deter pakistan might be needed. We should work on that front, with a view to cleaning up that part of the subcontinent.
If India is not amenable to such solution, then we have no other recourse than to get out of afghanistan. The logistics of staying over in afghanistan, policing a fragile government facing insurgents across the border with pakistan is going to be untenable, soon, very soon.
Joint work with responsible allies like India, is the only possible way to extricate ourselves from that region in a meaningful way. In fact, it might be the only way out, given the present geostrategic conditions in the area created by the unbelievable evil actions undertaken by the chicken hawks.
It will take a trulhy patriotic administration to do it. It won’t be easy. If the Indians want the partnership, It will be a bloody, a very bloody affair. If they don’t, it will be a moment of shame for usa.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:56:00 +0000

Well, Afghanistan sucks. It's a mountainous land with very few roads and very little infrastructure. It's difficult to maintain any real security when you're dealing with the most backwards place on earth. Ultimately, we face some pretty major problems in that region. For one, Pakistan is unable or unwilling to deal with insurgents who live just inside their border. So we're left with two options, either let them get away, or invade Pakistan. Right now, we've been taking potshots across the border, but haven't made any major aggressive troop movements. This has to be handled delicately, unless we want to start a war with a nuclear power whose government has been as willing to work with us as their population will allow. The second big problem we face is that the population of Afghanistan is so poor and so powerless that they will do whatever it takes to survive, including cooperating with the Taliban. We should begin a program of aggressive investment into the country, building roads, power plants, schools, etc. Unlike Iraq or Japan, we aren't there to "rebuild". There's never been anything there in the first place. We should simply begin purchasing the poppy crop of the entire country. Pay the farmers to grow the only thing they know how to grow (poppies). We can then just go and dump it in the ocean for all I care -- we don't need the crop, but buying it will have two powerful benefits. First, we give farmers the ability to support their families, and second, we deny one of the prime sources of the Taliban's income -- the illegal opiate trade. This war will require unique thinking and non-traditional methods. We're not fighting to kill the bad guys, we're fighting to stabilize a country.

By: disaster

disaster — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:12:33 +0000

Afghanistan is not going to work until the realities of power are recognized. NATO is trying to impose a new reality of power that the west does not have the will to accomplish in the face of those powers that have a far stronger stake in it than we do. The same Pakistani groups that support destabilization of Afghanistan are not going to kindly go away, and there is no good way of deleting them from the equation. The Taliban have endless reserves of cannon fodder and have the means to continue feeding them under the radar.
Ask yourself this: What is the endgame for the U.S.? What is the endgame for the Taliban? What is the endgame for the Pakistani elites who support them? What is the endgame for other NATO allies?
The surge in Iraq began to work because after three years of strife the sides in Iraq began to stabilize. That is, those sides that lost, lost and those sides that won, won as much as they could. Once the coalition stopped trying to enforce their own ideas of the divisions in the country then those sides could sort it all out. So the Sunni ‘awakening council’ could turn their attentions on the outsiders causing trouble, the Shiites could begin politicking amongst themselves, and the criminal gangs could find their level of comfort in this ‘new order’. By criminal gangs I also include those who found positions in the new government. And of course Iran could find their level of influence.
India does have a stake in Afghanistan but they already have a conflict of their own in Kashmir which is a proxy cold war with Pakistan. So they are already involved and have no wish to escalate that when both sides possess nuclear weapons. They have their own volatile conditions to contend with.

By: Aussie Armchair General

Aussie Armchair General — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:17:33 +0000

null does remember correctly: the Indian member of the tribunal adjudicating on Japanese war crimes did offer a dissenting opinion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal

By: null

null — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:52:26 +0000

India is pretty fiercely independent, and are smart enough to stay out of the Afghanistan war. If I am remembering correctly despite fighting with the allies in WW2 (2Million+ volunteer army!) in exchange for independence from the British, they voted that Pearl Harbor was not Japanese aggression and was a response to US defense of China at the war crimes trials after Japan’s defeat. Point being that they always keep their own counsel. If they thought getting involved in Afghanistan was a good idea, they already would have done so.
That said, we used to be able to count on public opinion in India until our chicken fried president came along and made a mess of things.

By: pleuris

pleuris — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:31:55 +0000

Hearts and minds…
In Afg. It’s not about how many Taliban or other resistence you can kill, but what you can offer them. Remember the Afghans are used to extreme violence. It’s a way of life. A tool to survive in a harsh environment.
In my opinion the best way to tackle this, And that is; first destroy the poppy fields that will impact the least farmers. (small fields, and little control from the drugsgangs). Offer the farmers that are effected compensation by giving them money and others ways of farming. And give them security from that gangs. Then after this works spread the word and expand it.
Secondly, and that’s the hardest part. Drive a wedge between the different fighting groups, so that they cannot undermine your goals, by using a lot of diplomacy, bribing and if that not works, a big stick, (carefully used…)
Third, education: If people are educated, people make wise decisions, and are less easily bullied by people with big mouths.

By: CS

CS — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:48:12 +0000

The success in Iraq has shown that the US military is unbeatable. Put a few more resources into Afghanistan and it will succeed, without question.

By: JEFF

JEFF — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:08:51 +0000

I still would like us be closer allies with India. They seem to be doing ok and are probably about to explode like China. Ohh and they are enemies with Pakistan who most of their people hate us. India

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:56:50 +0000

Afghanistan is the mythical “good war.” Both NATO & the U.S. spout this rhetorical nonsense,but neither put their “money” where their mouths are. I still say that Osama Bin Laden is long dead since 2001. We make the Taliban out to be the devils,then we sing the praises of Saudi Arabia(with our current president even holding hands with the Saudi King,or prince,whatever),who are just as cruel to their women as the Taliban are to theirs. Pakistan,Iran,& the former Soviet Central Asian States are slowly putting a noose around Afghanistan & it will be impossible to move both troops & supplies in & out of Afghanistan. The long term forecast for Afghanistan is that it is lost.

By: Matt in NC

Matt in NC — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:39:04 +0000

The surge in Iraq was about projecting force into the cities and cleaning out known bad guy strongholds. Afghanistan is an area the state of California with the most rugged terrain on the planet. Does anyone remember when the FBI spent 2 years and $20 million dollars trying to find Eric Rudolf in 10 square miles of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina? Multiply that by a factor of 1000.