- ‹ previous
- 67 of 2798
- next ›
Going Big in Afghanistan
Counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? Traditionally, the former requires lots of troops in order to root out and defeat a local insurgency while protecting the civilian population, while the latter requires only a small, light force to chase after bad guys and kill them. 
But Spencer Ackerman reports that in addition to top commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the two commanders of U.S. special forces, Vice Adm. William McRaven and Vice Adm. Robert Harward, both favor big troop increases to back up their counterterrorism efforts:
The fact that JSOC veterans like McRaven, Harward and McChrystal favor an overall counterinsurgency strategy with a counterterrorism component demonstrates that the military no longer believes distinguishing between the two is tenable in the Afghanistan war. “Special Operations Forces that were traditionally used for counterterrorism better understand how their capabilities fit into a counterinsurgency campaign than perhaps they did when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began,” said Andrew Exum, a veteran of both wars and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security who over the summer advised McChrystal in a review of Afghanistan strategy.
....McRaven runs a secretive detachment of Special Forces known as Task Force 714 — once commanded by McChrystal himself — that the NSC staffer described as “direct-action” units conducting “high-intensity hits.”....In a move signaling his own importance to McChrystal, Harward will arrive in Afghanistan later this month to command a new task force, known as Task Force 435, that will take charge of detention facilities in Afghanistan.
....The advice of McRaven and Harward to the White House strategy review, the [NSC] staffer said, was to push for a “heavy, heavy, heavy COIN [counterinsurgency] presence” in select population centers like the capitol city of Kabul, while relying on new or expanded counterterrorism units like Task Force 714 for hunting and killing terrorists outside of those population centers — particularly in areas like the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a key transit point for Taliban and al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents.
Basically, there seems to be no support anywhere in the military for a light footprint in Afghanistan. In a way, that's no surprise: why not get as many troops as you can, after all? But it also highlights Obama's dilemma: regardless of where his heart is, it's almost impossible to defy military advice when it's nearly unanimous. Picking one side vs. another is one thing, but trying to impose your own strategy on the entire bureaucracy is quite another. It sounds like the light footprint never really had a chance.
All hail our glorious and
All hail our glorious and never-ending war ! May it linger in the hearts of our enemy's children and grand-children, forevermore.
Get Out Now.
We have a tradition in this country, enshrined in the constitution, of civilian control of the military. The President is a civilian. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian. And the vast majority of the electorate are civilians.
It is wise that we should seek the counsel of experts on military matters. But as of late, the "experts", both within the military and without, have failed us. And furthermore, the vast majority of the electorate has little stomach for further military investment and in Afghanistan.
The truth is, this is one area where the President currently holds a winning hand, should he decide to play it. The majority of Americans are behind him. Congress may disagree, they may hem and haw, but they are ultimately powerless. And the chance of a military coup in the U.S. is zero.
We clearly can't "win" in Afghanistan unless we also take control of Pakistan, and that clearly isn't even under serious consideration. Moreover, it simply isn't possible.
We should cut our losses and get out. And we should always keep in mind that in war there are no winners, only losers.
I Don't Get This
I really don't. What's the upside?
At least in Iraq one could cynically point to Iraqi oil fields or shifting the broader US Persian Gulf oil defense out of Saudi Arabia or pressuring Iran (or all three). Afghanistan doesn't appear to offer much. What's the point?
Why?
The TransAfghan pipeline. Also a presence closer to the Caspian region (oil and gas). I hate to be a broken record on this point, but the strategic reasons for being (and staying as an ally) in Afghanistan are enormous. Not that I agree, mind you. It's all about global power.
Gen Jim Jones
Hi Kevin,
Didn't you see Gen Jim Jones' interview with Spiegel a few days ago? "Generals always ask for more troops".
Regards, Steve @ Newshoggers
"Afghanistan doesn't appear
"Afghanistan doesn't appear to offer much. What's the point?"
Pakistan.
How does waging a
How does waging a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan eliminate the Taliban threat in Pakistan, exactly?
...you would say that,
...you would say that, wouldn't you Pakie? Don't worry, we'll end up mangling your fake nation either way, mark my word.
Troops
Good Lord, Kevin,
Stick to Wall Street. The COIN manual, authored by the Master of Disaster himself, David Petraeus, would call for around 600,000 combat troops, based on Afghanistan's population. As such a number approaches the size of our active army plus marine corps, I think we won't even get to the neighborhood of such a commitment. So what is the point of such a strategy, other than to make the fools running our military look good and to kill and maim as many of our kids as possible ? This stuff is pure bullshit, Kevin. We are on our way to the downfall of our own short-lived empire. If you want to do something useful, take up playing the fiddle and dressing up in a toga. I do, however, love the cat blogs.
Gods or Heroes?
Shall we define our adversaries tactics & strategy as insurgency or terrorism? Wrong question: Not ours to decide. Whether we imagine ourselves to be gods or heroes, we've had a hard time convincing Afghans to see it our way.
You could make a strong case that our civilian and military leadership have lost their minds. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be surprising that the military leadership, surrounded by enemies who manifest themselves as insurgents AND as terrorists, would be looking for as many troops as possible to confront upheavals that they cannot understand, measure, predict, or control.
Anybody who still pretends to know how to control Afghanistan is peddling death and ignorance.
Supporting the Afghan
Supporting the Afghan government would be a start.....or do you believe in everything your feckless media tells you?
this will not end well
"....McRaven runs a secretive detachment of Special Forces known as Task Force 714 — once commanded by McChrystal himself — that the NSC staffer described as “direct-action” units conducting “high-intensity hits.”....In a move signaling his own importance to McChrystal, Harward will arrive in Afghanistan later this month to command a new task force, known as Task Force 435, that will take charge of detention facilities in Afghanistan."
Secret detachments of Special Forces running detention facilities in war zones... what could possibly go wrong? For those with short memories, McChrystal is the same guy who oversaw Task Force 6-26, famous for its torture practices at Camp Nama in Iraq. Is there any reason to think we're not headed for an Afghan version of Abu Ghraib?
This gets more depressing every day.
You may be right. I am just
You may be right. I am just frustrated that few people speak of the two countries together, or our commitment in Afghanistan as intertwined with that of Pakistan.
I get the impression we're in Afghanistan because of Pakistan, but I don't even think Obama makes that clear, much less the military.
I'd be much more in favor of withdrawing from Afghanistan if I didn't fear that just makes it even harder to make Pakistan safe.
(And not just to protect their nukes (which should be removed), but to protect their whole society, which is relatively Western, and well educated, and doesn't deserve an Islamic revolution.)
Pakistan
First, I have to wonder about your last sentence. The Pakistanis weren't having very much trouble defending themselves from terrorism until we forced Osama's people into northern Pakistan with our vaunted attack on Bora Bora. And, as to whether they deserve their current problems with the Taliban, I would say that we need to look at the fact that the government of Pakistan created the Taliban as a foil to India, and their creation became a monster, though not the monster that it's become since we amplified the problem with our fucking little war. The fact is that, thanks to the assholes in Bush's administration, not only did we fuck up Iraq, we fucked up the two countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It may not sit well with our legendary Can Do military, but it just may be that there's no way to fix Dubya's screwup. I have a feeling that we're on the way to our third fuckup by becoming militarily involved in northern Pakistan, but time will tell.
For you information, Iraq
For you information, Iraq isn't cuked up and Afghanistan is one hundred times better than what she was a decade back. Security problems therein are traced back to Pakistan. But here's the upshot....while Iraq and Afghanistan are getting better, Pakistan is getting annihilated.....couldn't happen to a nicer people. You've lost your strategic relevance after the cold war, so live with it by first kissing the Indians in the rear.
Huh ?
Huh ?
Unanimous Folly
When military opinion is ''nearly unanimous'' it is invariably wrong. Ask the ghosts of LBJ and Richard Nixon.
"War is too important to be left to generals."
This is horrible...
I'm amazed this is going on. It has to stop. All God-fearing Christian Conservatives and bleeding-heart Liberals must join together now to end this scourge known as 'cat blogging'. Heh.
LMAO!
Whew, that was close...
I thought that Joe Biden might have broken his string of consecutive wrong decisions concerning foreign policy and national defense. But for Drum to concede that "there seems to be no support anywhere in the military for a light footprint in Afghanistan" is to once again see Biden as a total idiot.
Afghanistan
Au Contraire,
Biden may be one of the few who has it right. Have a talk with the Russians and the British about how easy it will be to transform Afghanistan.
Uh, Biden isn't in the
Uh, Biden isn't in the military, so I don't exactly get your point.
Universal support for increase in troop levels?
In my experience every single time my opinion has gone against conventional wisdom I have later been vindicated by history. Of course, history has little to do with those who deliberately choose to totally ignore it for political gain. Ask anyone in Nazi Germany who blamed the loss in the first World War on "enemies within". Even now, we have idiots who whine about "liberal wimps" who "sold out our noble military" [meaning generals].
The idea that we can conquer the globe and force feed democracy if only we can curb our democratic "excesses" to allow us military victory is delusional. At its best we end up with no democracy and the "enemies of freedom" will win anyway. So what if we are the "lesser evil" in Afghanistan? What we are trying to do is evil. At its best it is counterproductive and delusional. But having history on your side and 2 dollars will buy you a cup of coffee just about everywhere [maybe 2 cups if deflation persists - otherwise counterfeiting money to pay for war will require an additional 4 dollars].
May God's will be done on earth and let it begin - and end - with myself. If it happens any other way it's not God's will.
President Obama is currently
tagged as:- solution
President Obama is currently deciding whether to send as many as 60,000 additional U.S. soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.
Let's urge Obama to live up to his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Tell him to withdraw troops from Afghanistan -- not send more.
world war three
we need to get out of the middle east all together. Bushes war has cost us and the middle east too many lives and too much money. these people need to make they're own destiny.
Lets all come to our senses
Lets all come to our senses here. The only way for us to bring everlasting peace in the middle-east is to re-institute our draft. Once every US citizen, legal or otherwise, between the ages of 18 and 60 is in uniform, and ready for action, can we successfully sweep into Afghan & Pakistan, with a stop off in Iraq to tidy up there, then it's on into Iran for the a knock out. With our mission then complete we set up democratic governments, just like ours, which the populace of these countries really want us to do. To ensure peace and prosperity we invite big oil corporations to these countries to set up shop and provide jobs for the populace.
Only then will we in America have peace of mind as we roll down our highways in our SUV's persuing our constitutional right to happiness which only low prices at the gas pump can bring.