NationStates Jolt Archive

Any solution in Afghanistan involves Iraq on many dimensions. If we suddenly leave Iraq, there are a lot of fighters with no fight. The Taleban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan ranks will swell. This means that we will see a sort of super insurgency in Afghanistan with veteran terrorists and insurgents from two fronts collaborating. This makes the option of consolidating on Afghanistan non-existent. We will still be fighting our enemy from Iraq plus the Taleban. However allow the surge in Iraq to only last until October or so we could have 20,000 troops for 4 or 5 months in Afghanistan. With these troops we would be able to conduct country wide offensives as seen in the outset of the war. This would also require much SOF support from all branches. B/c we have many SOF forces dedicated to OIF, we would need to take them from that fight to have a sufficient amount. Once the country is back to early 2002 levels of violence we need to not make the same mistakes as we made back then. We need enough follow on troops to be able to secure the Pakistani border. Right now it is clearly not an option for Musharraf to conduct another hammer and anvil b/c of domestic politics but if the anvil is big enough we can at least keep them out. The majority of the U.S. forces should be positioned at the border while NATO forces should be doing the majority of the counter-insurgency work on the inside of the nation. A much more dedicated international effort will be required to make the humanitarian and reconstruction effort work. A lack of funds and manpower was what doomed our previous efforts to failure. If Iraq were to fall to islamic fundamentalists while we are carrying out this effort the results would be catastrophic.

Aren't most of the insurgents fighting in Iraq involved primarily in fighting other muslims? Wouldn't the removal of US forces in Iraq essentially increase the amount of violence in Iraq? No doubt that there would be some insurgents relocating to Afghanistan, but the 'victory' of removing the US from Iraq would be nothing compared to what the insurgents would gain in winning any particular struggle for control over Iraq.

We need enough follow on troops to be able to secure the Pakistani border. Right now it is clearly not an option for Musharraf to conduct another hammer and anvil b/c of domestic politics but if the anvil is big enough we can at least keep them out. The majority of the U.S. forces should be positioned at the border while NATO forces should be doing the majority of the counter-insurgency work on the inside of the nation.

That border is very hard to secure. Taliban will shoot and run back and you can't pursue them (at least not all the time).

And they can wait while you cannot sustain troop levels for long.

The majority of the U.S. forces should be positioned at the border while NATO forces should be doing the majority of the counter-insurgency work on the inside of the nation.

Oh good...cause Pakistan is so stable, I'm sure forcing all the religious crazies there won't have any unforseen effects.

A lack of funds and manpower was what doomed our previous efforts to failure.

Yeah, that's true...although there is no reason for it. We had no buisness trying to nation-build in two seperate nations at the same time.

If Iraq were to fall to islamic fundamentalists while we are carrying out this effort the results would be catastrophic.

Iraq was doomed to "fall" to Islamic fudamentalists the moment Bush decided democracy was the best plan for that country.

My sister in law did a year in Afghan.
An aquitance of mine did a tour in Afghan with the Soviets.

Securing the border, I sugget you buy a map.

Next, 20,000 troops? I hope thats a typo.

20,000 additional troops wouldnt dent what is needed in Afghan or Iraq.

This war was engaged in a Fundamental Cluster Fuck of Epic proportions.

Ignore the political fiasco and just look at the military debacle.

US troops stretched thin beyond imagining, the singularly most ignorant American deployment ever.

20,000 troops might be good for a region in one fothese nations but it amounts to jack shit across a nation wide theater.

You want Afghanistan?

Pull out of Iraq
1. Leaving the Power Vacuum that GWs daddy said would be left during DS when people were calling for the removal of saddam...the administration then said Saddam couldnt be taken because it bring chaos to the region...oh looky looky.

2. That power vacuum is filled with the Iraqi Sectarian civil war, the Turkish invasion of Khurdistan. The Iranian manipulation of Iraq.

3. This levels a massive number of troops(100,000) Iraq tested Vets to go to Afghanistan and
a. Train Afghan Loyalists to resist the Arab/Taliban insurgency...and yes there is a Difference between Afghans and Arabs.
b. Enough forces to to either Hammer and Anvil the insurgents against our and Paki forces...or prove the Pakis are aiding the Taliban.

4. Afghan closes.
We can then bring our boys home and watch Iraq rip itself apart for a few years until either Democracy is installed...just like it was installed here with a bloody civil war...or a new strong man assumes power either under the Arab Nationalist banner(Sunni) or a Muslim Theoractic(Shia'a) one.
Should the latter take place have no doubt Saudi Arabia will be screaming for America to station a permanent force on her border.
Problem solved...well not really...but at this point we are fecked no matter what we do...we need to find a way to get as less fecked as possible...because not fecked isnt going to happen.

Securing the border, I sugget you buy a map.This is true. World Factbook says Afghanistan has 5,529 km of borders of which 2,430 km are with Pakistan and 936 km with Iran. That's 6 troops per km and that is very damn stretched.

Afghanistan is lost.

Tajeks are working with the Taliban.
The Taliban is in the Eastern Region.
The Taliban is working with the drug lords for an income source.
Relief orgs are closing down due to security problems.

There isn't enough troops to cover the territory. The taliban takes an area. Nato and the local army move to take it back and the Taliban moves out and takes another.

The security of the people is all but non-existent. Taliban promises it.
People are not working. Taliban gives them money.

Those that are openly against the Taliban are pressured into silence or worst.

US exit strategy. (http://www.profbob.com/images/American%20flag%20coffin%20marines.jpg)

USMC leathernecks2 -

Any solution in Afghanistan involves Iraq on many dimensions. If we suddenly leave Iraq, there are a lot of fighters with no fight.

You really don't know whats going on in Iraq do you?

What you need to do to win in Afghanistan?

Completely obliterate absolutely anything. Or you will lose. See every other war there, ever.

Which is why it's a waste of time to bother fighting there, because destroying whole nations is kind of rubbish, seeing as they contain people and such.

The United States was about to completely win over Afghanistan and make it into a real Middle East Democratic Nation until Your Dear Leader Dubya suddenly decided that showing Daddy that he had a bigger set of genitals by taking down the Hussein regime in Iraq was a lot more important than sticking to Afghanistan and making sure the Taliban were wiped out for good.

Now as a result of Shrub trying to show Daddy he can be a War President too, we have two Middle East quagmires which will be guaranteed to collapse if we pull out of either one.

Can someone answer this question: How can military veterans be such hardcore Busheviks?

The United States was about to completely win over Afghanistan and make it into a real Middle East Democratic Nation until Your Dear Leader Dubya suddenly decided that showing Daddy that he had a bigger set of genitals by taking down the Hussein regime in Iraq was a lot more important than sticking to Afghanistan and making sure the Taliban were wiped out for good.
Errr... you can't somehow blame bush for the factors that have made Afghanistan a feudal-style series of dictatorships.

You either get the local leaders in control as neutral people, or you get a load of local leaders in control under some kind of repressive regime. Such is Afghanistan.

Mostly due to it being a bit hilly to grow much food, and opium being a much better crop for the export market, so people are always slaving away to make money to finance wars, which then ruin their land, which they then re-cultivate, and then farm on and hence attacked etc. etc.
Now as a result of Shrub trying to show Daddy he can be a War President too, we have two Middle East quagmires which will be guaranteed to collapse if we pull out of either one.
They're guaranteed to collapse even if you have troops there, it'll just take a bit longer. See Vietnam.
Can someone answer this question: How can military veterans be such hardcore Busheviks?
Maybe they quite like wars on the quiet, and by liking Bush, they're bound to get some, or something. I dunno.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

I think this guy embodies US puppet states and their fate.

Any solution in Afghanistan involves Iraq on many dimensions.

There is only one way we can have any real impact in Afghanistan, and what we are doing now is not it. Like the former Soviet Union or not, we should have at least paid attention to their struggles in that theatre.

Afghanistan is perfect for guerrilla tactics. It has perfect geography for such a war, and the perfect population for it.

Afghanistan is perfect for upsetting established forces. Someone can wage a war of attrition against a government or occupying force, with a virtually unlimited supply of recruits, and absolute ease of disappearance after attacks.


So - how do we 'win' in Afghanistan?

Simple - we leave. Then we do what has always been successful in Afghanistan - we attack the 'regime' when it installs itself. We wait for the Taliban to set up their own junta, and then we go in and take them out. Then we leave again. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

A troop surge. Troop surges solve everything.

A troop surge. Troop surges solve everything.

Troop surges cut taxes too.

Afghanistan is lost.

Tajeks are working with the Taliban.
The Taliban is in the Eastern Region.
The Taliban is working with the drug lords for an income source.
Relief orgs are closing down due to security problems.
All of which is the reason we need to go on the offensive.
There isn't enough troops to cover the territory. The taliban takes an area. Nato and the local army move to take it back and the Taliban moves out and takes another.
We secured the country w/ less.
The security of the people is all but non-existent. Taliban promises it.
People are not working. Taliban gives them money.
Not quite. People are not working, they grow drugs.
Those that are openly against the Taliban are pressured into silence or worst.
You are not understanding Afghani culture. They don't overtly support any side. To them us and the Taleban are roughly the same, foreigners. Also, they will shelter anybody that needs it. Taleban not excluded. They don't need to pressure them.

Troop surges cut taxes too.

They do? Is there anything troop surges can't do?

Didn't troop surges discover penecillin, too?

They do? Is there anything troop surges can't do?

Didn't troop surges discover penecillin, too?

And sent man to the moon...

We secured the country w/ less.

I think that was a wrong strategy to begin with. US put very few men on the ground and made up the numbers by buying the loyalties of the warlords. These warlords being non-pashtun is causing at least some resentment in pashtun population to see ethnic tajiki and uzbeki leaders having more power in the current regime.

Plus this allowed way too many taliban to easily melt away (especially the leaders) and they simply set up shop in Pakistan where you cannot touch them.

I see few indications that the fighters in Iraq will go to Afghanistan... The local insurgents won't.

All of which is the reason we need to go on the offensive.

1We secured the country w/ less.

2Not quite. People are not working, they grow drugs.

3You are not understanding Afghani culture. They don't overtly support any side. To them us and the Taleban are roughly the same, foreigners. Also, they will shelter anybody that needs it. Taleban not excluded. They don't need to pressure them.

1 - The country was secured through the co-operation of opposition forces within Afghanistan, namely the Northern Alliance. Most of them have now disarmed.

2 - To them that is working.

3 - Your right there.

However, from reading your OP you seem to be under some sort of illusion about what would happen if we left Iraq. Exactly who are these thousands of foreign fighters in Iraq who would suddenly decamp for Afghanistan?

Firstly, most of the insurgents are Iraqis. I'm not saying there are no foreign fighters there, just that they are a distinct minority.

Secondly, as stated by several military people pulling out will invariably result in a civil war. Methinks any foreign fighters will stay on to try and win that instead of heading for Afghanistan.

Last I checked, we never fully secured Afghanistan. Sure, we control all the major cities, but there's no way we can root out al qaeda from every small town and village -- there are just too many! The only way to wipe out al qaeda would be a massive troop surge. And no, 20,000 isn't nearly enough. I'm not a general or anything, but I imagine we'd nee da good 100,000 or so new soldeirs, and that would require a multinational force -- thanks to Dubya's reckless invasion of Iraq, we don't HAVE 100,000 soldeirs to spar. We probably don';t even have 50,000 to spare!

Should I point out that Iraq needs a similar increase to win? And yes, the sunnis and shiites are mainly fighting against each other, but what do you think'll happen if we let them finish fighting each other? Moderates aren't about to go shoot strangers or blow themselves up in the name of religion! It's the radicals that do the fighting, and it's the radicals that'd be in power if we let them finish the fight. Sure, they ensuing government probably won't be *quite* as extreme as the taliban, but it won't be moderate either.

Good work, Dubya. Thanks to your efforts, we'll be unable to control the iraqi fundamentalists without internationalk help, and we'll have a new iraqi government as bad or worse than Saddam. Why the hell couldn't you have wqaited until AFTER afghanistan was stabilized with the troops you sent off to Iraq?

1 - The country was secured through the co-operation of opposition forces within Afghanistan, namely the Northern Alliance. Most of them have now disarmed.
And have been replaced by Afghani Army forces.
2 - To them that is working.
And?

However, from reading your OP you seem to be under some sort of illusion about what would happen if we left Iraq. Exactly who are these thousands of foreign fighters in Iraq who would suddenly decamp for Afghanistan?
Foreign fighters are the most deadly to U.S. forces. They have the most lethal weapons and are the most fanatical. The account for a percentage of U.S. casualties that is way out of proportion to their size.
Firstly, most of the insurgents are Iraqis. I'm not saying there are no foreign fighters there, just that they are a distinct minority.
And are the ones doing the majority of the killing and are most often in leadership positions.
Secondly, as stated by several military people pulling out will invariably result in a civil war. Methinks any foreign fighters will stay on to try and win that instead of heading for Afghanistan.
Not if the IA and IP can contain it.

1And have been replaced by Afghani Army forces.

And?


2Foreign fighters are the most deadly to U.S. forces. They have the most lethal weapons and are the most fanatical. The account for a percentage of U.S. casualties that is way out of proportion to their size.

And are the ones doing the majority of the killing and are most often in leadership positions.

3Not if the IA and IP can contain it.

1 - Who are not nearly as efficient or motivated.

2 - Yet they are still a very small minority.

3 - You havn't addressed my point. Even if the IA can somehow contain any civil war, the foreign fighters arn't just going top up sticks. You have already said they are fanatical so what would stop them from staying and trying to finish the job?

EDIT And the IA are nowhere near capable even securing the Iraqi borders let alone fighting the insurgency single handed.

1 - Who are not nearly as efficient or motivated.
True but they can still be effective.
2 - Yet they are still a very small minority.
They are a minority but not a very small minority. Also, as I already said, it is the damage that they do that is important, not their size.
3 - You havn't addressed my point. Even if the IA can somehow contain any civil war, the foreign fighters arn't just going top up sticks. You have already said they are fanatical so what would stop them from staying and trying to finish the job?
Now you're straying a little. In response to your post, if they realize that there is no way to win they won't try. However more on topic, if they win they move onto the next objective.

EDIT And the IA are nowhere near capable even securing the Iraqi borders let alone fighting the insurgency single handed.
They at least as capable as our border patrol and in a year or so they will be able to fight it alone.

True but they can still be effective.

They are a minority but not a very small minority. Also, as I already said, it is the damage that they do that is important, not their size.

1 Now you're straying a little. In response to your post, if they realize that there is no way to win they won't try. However more on topic, if they win they move onto the next objective.


2 They at least as capable as our border patrol and in a year or so they will be able to fight it alone.

1 - I wasn't straying that was my point. I see no reason for the foreign fighters to leave Iraq if we pull out. They have been fighting now for several years, and you are suggesting that if the number of troops are REDUCED they will see their failure and leave?
If they win, yes they move on to the next objective, but is that Afghanistan? There are islamic fundamentalist insurgencies in Tahiland and the Phillipines to mention two. But then you maintain they can't win, that they will be contained, so why would they leave?

2 - Now there we will have to disagree. I see no evidence from any source to suggest this.

1 - I wasn't straying that was my point.
Your original point was if we left then you moved to if we won.
I see no reason for the foreign fighters to leave Iraq if we pull out.
It's only the beginning of a caliphate, they will want more.
They have been fighting now for several years, and you are suggesting that if the number of troops are REDUCED they will see their failure and leave?
If troops are only reduced by a bit we will be fine. If they are all pulled out then we have a problem.
If they win, yes they move on to the next objective, but is that Afghanistan? There are islamic fundamentalist insurgencies in Tahiland and the Phillipines to mention two. But then you maintain they can't win, that they will be contained, so why would they leave?
There is no great American heathen there.

1 Your original point was if we left then you moved to if we won.

2 It's only the beginning of a caliphate, they will want more.

3 If troops are only reduced by a bit we will be fine. If they are all pulled out then we have a problem.

4 There is no great American heathen there.

1 - Not sure if I am reading this wrong but I don't understand that sentance.

2 - If you believe that the aim of these people is the establishment of the "worldwide caliphate" then you really have been listening to too much neo con propaganda.

3 - You are proposing reducing troops to the level before the surge - yet this was considered not enough.

4 - Again, neo con propaganda my friend. Learn to think for yourself.

1 - Not sure if I am reading this wrong but I don't understand that sentance.
Let me rephrase. Originally you were arguing about what would happen if we left Iraq. Then you moved onto arguing about what would happen if we won in Iraq.
2 - If you believe that the aim of these people is the establishment of the "worldwide caliphate" then you really have been listening to too much neo con propaganda.
You're silly, maybe you should listen to what they have to say about that.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000005.php
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/the_call_for_a_.html
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/islam_will_dominate.jpg
If you don't want to look at those you could just join the army, branch intel and go ask 'em yourself.
3 - You are proposing reducing troops to the level before the surge - yet this was considered not enough.
That is why i proposed doing this in 6 months.
4 - Again, neo con propaganda my friend. Learn to think for yourself.
You think it is neo-con propaganda that terrorists want to kill Americans? I'd sure love to live in your world.

Find Bin Laden and have a reasonable number of troops there, given that we had 500,000 in Viet Nam but still lost, why should we think that 35,000 or whatever is going to work in Afghanistan?

NO! NO! PLEASE MR. GOVERNMENT MAN! I DIDN'T MEAN TO SPEAK RATIONALLY! IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN! PLEASE! NO! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


Ahem. This is Governmental Electric Drone (GED) Number 3,014. There is no concern. Calmly return to your telescreens.

1 Let me rephrase. Originally you were arguing about what would happen if we left Iraq. Then you moved onto arguing about what would happen if we won in Iraq.

2 You're silly, maybe you should listen to what they have to say about that.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000005.php
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/the_call_for_a_.html
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/islam_will_dominate.jpg
If you don't want to look at those you could just join the army, branch intel and go ask 'em yourself.

3 That is why i proposed doing this in 6 months.

4 You think it is neo-con propaganda that terrorists want to kill Americans? I'd sure love to live in your world.

1 - I certainly have not argued about us "winning" in Iraq, for the simple reason I don't believe there is suuch a thing as "winning", certainly not by the definition that Bush and co have of a "win".

2 - And that is the propaganda of the islamists. Its there version of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. I don't take either view seriously and nor should anyone else. I will accept that there are Islamists out there who want to set up a world caliphate, but this aim is neither realistic or doable - its ludicrous.

3 - As several people have stated, the surge is nowhere near large enough to achieve what it was supposed to, so what will be different in 6 months?

4 - The terrorists want to achieve their aims. If that involves killing US soldiers then they will. If the US soldiers wern't where they shouldn't be, they wouldn't be getting killed would they? Most of the "terrorrists" in Iraq want the Americans out so they can kill each other, so yes, I do it see it as neo-con propaganda that "the terrorrists want to kill Americans". If that was there sole aim they would be in America doing so wouldn't they?