Afghanistan and Obama's New Plan

[NorthSideSox72]

So, Obama has said that as Iraq draws down, he wants more emphasis put on Afghanistan, where he feels we cut out early. So let's have a thread about the Afghani situation.

 

Here is an opening issue that will already make things difficult. Kyrgyzstan is moving a bill through their Parliament to kick the US off the airbase there, which seems to be a key facility for refueling, staging and transporation into and out of Afghanistan. Obama already has a delicate foreign policy challenge here, and it puts him right up against he Russians as well.

 

[lostfan]

I've read different things about how Russia feels about us using their old satellite countries to do things in Afghanistan. Sometimes I hear they're cool with it, sometimes I hear they get their panties in a bunch.

[DBAHO]

Yeah this is an issue which needs urgent attention IMO, moreso that Iraq and maybe more than the Middle East.

 

Because the Taliban are regrouping over there and causing quite a serious threat, in a dangerous region.

 

Obama certainly has a lot on his plate ATM.

[Balta1701]

Here is the key question/problem for this country's Afghan policy:

The Pentagon is prepared to announce the deployment of 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan as early as this week even as President Barack Obama is searching for his own strategy for the war. According to military officials during last week's meeting with Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon's "tank," the president specifically asked, "What is the end game?" in the U.S. military's strategy for Afghanistan. When asked what the answer was, one military official told NBC News, "Frankly, we don't have one." But they're working on it.

[DBAHO]

Here is the key question/problem for this country's Afghan policy:

Yeah they need to figure one out quick, because NATO is having real problems out there.

 

Just read a story that the Taliban captured 30 Pakistani Police Officers and released them only on the condition that they would quit and refuse to fight the Taliban again.

 

Things like that are happening all of the time in that region now.

[Texsox]

At this point I do not believe Obama has an option other than allowing the military to dictate the strategy. IMHO he risks too much by making changes until he has his feet underneath him. Plus it will build trust as a non-military guy takes over as Commander-in-Chief.

[DukeNukeEm]

The biggest problem is the second we lower troop levels in Iraq it will go back to being the way it was in 05. The surge really hasn't done anything.

[lostfan]

The biggest problem is the second we lower troop levels in Iraq it will go back to being the way it was in 05. The surge really hasn't done anything.

It's not that, it's that the surge was wrongly credited for the other factors that led to all the changes by a lot of people. The surge was one of like 4-5 factors.

[bmags]

The biggest problem is the second we lower troop levels in Iraq it will go back to being the way it was in 05. The surge really hasn't done anything.

 

Iraq really all depends on Iran. They can f***ing leverage us with Iraq for their nuke program.

[NorthSideSox72]

The biggest problem is the second we lower troop levels in Iraq it will go back to being the way it was in 05. The surge really hasn't done anything.

The "surge" in the most literal, narrow sense, did very little. But the "surge" was paired with some changes in strategy that most definitely did some good things. For one, the new military leader (Patreus) at that time implemented a program similar in style to community-based policing, changing the way the US military was doing their business. That went a long way towards reducing violence. Also, a change in political strategy occurred, where the US did more direct negotiating with certain entities it refused to deal with before. These were changes made that actually had a positive material effect.

 

Coincidentally, certain politcal shifts occurred in Iraq among the groups already there (Mahdi Army, Sunni Militants), which allowed them to dial down the violence. This exposed AQ and made them easier to deal with, and took away some of the violent "noise", making the US military more capable of doing their jobs.

 

So in the most literal and surface sense, yes, the Surge was a small effect. But talking about the broader changes, it had a large and important effect. This may or may not have a lasting effect as the US draws down - that is hard to say. But it gives them a much better chance of succeeding independent of the US.

 

[lostfan]

So in the most literal and surface sense, yes, the Surge was a small effect. But talking about the broader changes, it had a large and important effect. This may or may not have a lasting effect as the US draws down - that is hard to say. But it gives them a much better chance of succeeding independent of the US.

It better, because if it doesn't after all we've done, it pretty much never will. We can only do so much.

[DBAHO]

FWIW, I was reading this morning that Medvedev came out and said Russia was willing to help America with Afghanistan.

 

Some welcome news I guess, although actions do speak louder than words.

[southsider2k5]

FWIW, I was reading this morning that Medvedev came out and said Russia was willing to help America with Afghanistan.

 

Some welcome news I guess, although actions do speak louder than words.

 

I thought it was only with non-military supplies though?

[bmags]

honestly, for some semblance of success in these two countries we need help from some unattractive countries.

[DBAHO]

honestly, for some semblance of success in these two countries we need help from some unattractive countries.

I think off the top of my head, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain all have troops over there ATM, but I could be wrong.

 

I know we definitely do.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think off the top of my head, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain all have troops over there ATM, but I could be wrong.

 

I know we definitely do.

I think he meant logistically. Afghanistan's borders include Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, China (but that border is very small and in very rugged terrain, in the Hindu Kush), and possibly India via the Kashmir (but I am not sure the parts of Kashmir along that border are India's). None of those are particularly attractive countries for cooperation, except India, and I am not sure they actually control those borders.

 

[lostfan]

I think he meant logistically. Afghanistan's borders include Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, China (but that border is very small and in very rugged terrain, in the Hindu Kush), and possibly India via the Kashmir (but I am not sure the parts of Kashmir along that border are India's). None of those are particularly attractive countries for cooperation, except India, and I am not sure they actually control those borders.

Yeah, Kashmir is a mess. Even if India wanted to be able to do something to cooperate logistically I'm pretty sure they couldn't.

 

You left out Uzbekistan btw.

[bmags]

Yeah.

 

Iran has so much power in Iraq right now that we need them, (need, how scary is that), for Iraq's sustained success. Now, for afghanistan that's a different story. Pakistan don't have the centralized political power to help, and Russia doesn't have near the influence that Iran does with Iraq, but does not a lot about the region and has an interest in it. Overall, It will be a mess.

[DBAHO]

I think he meant logistically. Afghanistan's borders include Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, China (but that border is very small and in very rugged terrain, in the Hindu Kush), and possibly India via the Kashmir (but I am not sure the parts of Kashmir along that border are India's). None of those are particularly attractive countries for cooperation, except India, and I am not sure they actually control those borders.

That shows why Pakistan is such a crucial country in that region.

 

It's so easy for the Taliban etc. to smuggle weapons / supplies / attackers through there as much as they want.

[Balta1701]

U.S. approval rating data from Afghanistan by year.

 

[DBAHO]

No real surprise I think, considering the state of affairs in that country over the past couple of years.

[Balta1701]

No real surprise I think, considering the state of affairs in that country over the past couple of years.

I think the point I'm making is just how much of a challenge fixing that country after neglecting it for all but 6 months out of the last 20 years will be.

[DBAHO]

I think the point I'm making is just how much of a challenge fixing that country after neglecting it for all but 6 months out of the last 20 years will be.

Oh yeah absolutely. Look at the USSR occupying that territory in the late 80's also, and the country still trying to recover from that.

 

Luckily for the US, there is already a stable government in place that are allies in the US. Now they've just got to deal with the Taliban, because like 5 years ago, they are coming to the forth again.

[Balta1701]

Luckily for the US, there is already a stable government in place that are allies in the US. Now they've just got to deal with the Taliban, because like 5 years ago, they are coming to the forth again.

I really don't think I'd call them a stable government any more. That's a big part of the problem. The recent years of neglect have reduced the influence of the government that was organized after the fall of the Taliban to nearly zero, and has discredited it in the eyes of most of the population.

[bmags]

It's going to take a lot of viagara to get through this mess.