New Afghanistan Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

So I thought this was worth discussing. A new offensive started today (or yesterday) in Afghanistan, as we are seeing the first new moves under Obama and his military staff. So things may start shifting there again.

 

In the last day or two, the US started a large new offensive in the south, trying to clear out Taliban forces prior to the August elections. This is the largest marine offensive launched since the 2004 Fallujah wave.

 

Also fun to watch regularly, the Trib sent a reporter to Afghanistan to blog and write on the new progress (as well as the Illinois guard units there), so he provides regular updates here.

 

[kapkomet]

Oh, is this the Afghan "surge"? I thought that "surges" didn't work?

 

[Balta1701]

Oh, is this the Afghan "surge"? I thought that "surges" didn't work?

Really, there have been so many books written about all the things that needed to change to get Iraq back under control that this isn't even good kaperbole, it doesn't serve to illustrate any larger point, it's just kind of annoying.

[kapkomet]

Really, there have been so many books written about all the things that needed to change to get Iraq back under control that this isn't even good kaperbole, it doesn't serve to illustrate any larger point, it's just kind of annoying.

Yes, yes, I see. It's different now that Barackus the Great can take credit for all things well in Iraq. Or something. It's totally different now!

[Balta1701]

Yes, yes, I see. It's different now that Barackus the Great can take credit for all things well in Iraq. Or something. It's totally different now!

Well, this is clearly going no where, I'm done.

[kapkomet]

The larger point is that the "surge" is damn near the same in Afghanistan, and three years ago, everyone was against it that had a (D) behind their name. Why? For political motivations. PERIOD.

 

Yes, there were a lot of other factors. And there are now. But the tactics are largely the same. Those (D)'s were pretty damn quick to dismiss it all because it was political, now the same tactics are supported.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The larger point is that the "surge" is damn near the same in Afghanistan, and three years ago, everyone was against it that had a (D) behind their name. Why? For political motivations. PERIOD.

 

Yes, there were a lot of other factors. And there are now. But the tactics are largely the same. Those (D)'s were pretty damn quick to dismiss it all because it was political, now the same tactics are supported.

And you know what? They did a hell of a lot more than just adding 20000 troops. They fundamentally shifted strategy and literally threw the bums out who were insisting that the old strategy was fine. They also got plenty lucky on the timing of the thing because the surge happened just about the time that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad of everyone who wasn't a Shi'a was complete. And altogether, it caused a dramatic improvement. It wound up working. Hell, if you want me to say I was wrong, sure I didn't think it would work that well, but the shifts in strategy were huge. Had they not done that it may very well just have been more of a bloodbath.

 

In Afghanistan, they've tripled the number of American troops in country and they're trying the same basic shifts in strategy. We'll see if it works.

[kapkomet]

And you know what? They did a hell of a lot more than just adding 20000 troops. They fundamentally shifted strategy and literally threw the bums out who were insisting that the old strategy was fine. They also got plenty lucky on the timing of the thing because the surge happened just about the time that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad of everyone who wasn't a Shi'a was complete. And altogether, it caused a dramatic improvement. It wound up working. Hell, if you want me to say I was wrong, sure I didn't think it would work that well, but the shifts in strategy were huge. Had they not done that it may very well just have been more of a bloodbath.

 

In Afghanistan, they've tripled the number of American troops in country and they're trying the same basic shifts in strategy. We'll see if it works.

Sure they did a lot more. And yes, they had to change strategies. But it was "lost" and the strategy was "wrong" and... and ... and ... (insert whatever countless negative connotations from Democrats here).

 

Now, the same thing is being done in Afghanistan, and Obama's a GENIUS for doing it. At least that's how it's being reported. What a f***tard that Bush was, no matter which way you want to slice it.

[Balta1701]

Quite frankly I'm not sure that going all-in is the right strategy here. Just because it worked in Iraq doesn't mean it'll work on a smaller scale here. But the fact that Iraq has turned around so dramatically argues that it's worth a shot, does it not?

 

And The fact that 6 years and probably a quarter of a million or more lives and a trillion or two dollars later Iraq has finally achieved a low but simmering level of violence with only a car bomb every couple days doesn't exactly mean to me that he wasn't a f***tard.

[Chet Lemon]

Yes, yes, I see. It's different now that Barackus the Great can take credit for all things well in Iraq. Or something. It's totally different now!

 

Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different. The Taliban controlled the Afghan government and provided shelter, training and money for the 9/11 terrorists. The Iraqi government did not.

[kapkomet]

Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different. The Taliban controlled the Afghan government and provided shelter, training and money for the 9/11 terrorists. The Iraqi government did not.

So?

 

That's not the point.

[bmags]

So?

 

That's not the point.

 

You act like that's a prerequisite for your posts.

[lostfan]

So?

 

That's not the point.

The 2 countries are actually almost nothing alike no matter how much you simplify it and insist it's just a concept of a "surge" that Obama disapproved of at the time. Bush didn't just one day decide to double down on Iraq and add a bunch of extra troops and voila, suddenly the country is pacified. I'm tired of hearing conservatives ignoring the bunch of other major factors that Gates and Petraeus introduced and talking about it like that's what actually happened, too. It's something like a pet peeve of mine now.

 

Obama IS adding troops to Afghanistan but that is mainly because commanders there have been screaming for additional troops for years, but couldn't get them because Afghanistan was being flat-out neglected in favor of Iraq. Now that we're moving troops out of Iraq we have the ability to put some of them in Afghanistan. They're also changing the way we're fighting that war (I still think we're pretty much wasting our time there though, it's been 30 years of war there).

[Soxy]

The larger point is that the "surge" is damn near the same in Afghanistan, and three years ago, everyone was against it that had a (D) behind their name. Why? For political motivations. PERIOD.

 

Yes, there were a lot of other factors. And there are now. But the tactics are largely the same. Those (D)'s were pretty damn quick to dismiss it all because it was political, now the same tactics are supported.

Why didn't you start with this post? Because half the people on this board won't even read it because you were being such a you know what with your first post in this thread. Seriously.

[lostfan]

Russia agreed to let the U.S. ship supplies through Russian territory (via rail I guess) today.

[Balta1701]

The Financial Times talks to one of the Obama admin's AfPak advisors.

Since arriving at Harvard in June last year, he has been consultant to several members of Barack Obama’s administration, including Hillary Clinton, and is a member of Richard Holbrooke’s special committee for Afghanistan and Pakistan policy. “I do a lot of work with policymakers, but how much effect am I having?” he asks, pronging a mussel out of its shell.

 

“It’s like they’re coming in and saying to you, ‘I’m going to drive my car off a cliff. Should I or should I not wear a seatbelt?’ And you say, ‘I don’t think you should drive your car off the cliff.’ And they say, ‘No, no, that bit’s already been decided – the question is whether to wear a seatbelt.’ And you say, ‘Well, you might as well wear a seatbelt.’ And then they say, ‘We’ve consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart and he says ...’”

[BigSqwert]

"What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny,"

- Andy Bacevich, Commonweal.

[southsider2k5]

- Andy Bacevich, Commonweal.

 

Unanswered? After 9-11?

[BigSqwert]

Unanswered? After 9-11?

Read the whole article.

 

IMO there is nothing to gain by staying there but everyone knows I'm the hippie weirdo pacifist.

[lostfan]

I alternate between thinking the whole thing is a waste of time and thinking it's just a big s*** sandwich we have to chew and swallow.

[BigSqwert]

I alternate between thinking the whole thing is a waste of time and thinking it's just a big s*** sandwich we have to chew and swallow.

Countless empires have failed there in the past. This won't be any different.

[southsider2k5]

Read the whole article.

 

IMO there is nothing to gain by staying there but everyone knows I'm the hippie weirdo pacifist.

 

about 3000 American's died on American soil because we ignored the mess there for so long. Not having thousands of American's die in the future to me is the very definition of "something to gain".

[BigSqwert]

about 3000 American's died on American soil because we ignored the mess there for so long. Not having thousands of American's die in the future to me is the very definition of "something to gain".

Again. Read the article.

[lostfan]

Countless empires have failed there in the past. This won't be any different.

Yeah... Afghanistan and Iraq are not really comparable. For as s***ty a country as it is, Iraq actually had trained professionals and some educated people in the country, so there was a base of people that could get stuff done. Afghanistan has nothing like that, it's a big clusterf***. Everybody that had some kind of value left the country in the 80s when the Soviets were there and who would want to go back now? The best we can do is to not leave things worse than when we started.

[lostfan]

about 3000 American's died on American soil because we ignored the mess there for so long. Not having thousands of American's die in the future to me is the very definition of "something to gain".

I tend to agree but it's really not about that. It's not about what we have to gain, it's about whether it's even possible.