BF2S Forums 10 years in Afghanistan

Shocking wrote:

Two things that make me doubt our successes in the war are:
1. an Afghan voter turnout rate of only 40% in 2010 elections according to an Afghan election commission.

Turnout in national lower house elections, 1960–1995
United States     N     18     48%

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

Fair point...

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Especially that military training and equipment testing argument is pretty cynical

it seems to me that hunting down al qaida members/leaders could have been done much more effectively and with a lot less human losses by using special forces and drones instead of invading a country

Only pretty cynical?

Damn, I was going for weapons grade sarcasm.

We would've had Osama bin Hiding 2 years after 9/11, if the dipshits in the White House hadn't micromanaged the SF team on the ground in Afghanistan.
Had him cornered, on the radio telling his followers to go home, whining on the radio how the 'apostate states have failed us. I have failed you'
Send in the SF, kill him, call it a day?  NooOOOoOOoo... we give a tribal warlord (of questionable allegiance) 24 hours cease fire to go 'negotiate his surrender'.

More like 24 hours to go find an apartment in Pakistan...

I remember watching an interview with Pete Blaber (as well as reading his book), where he suggested that the larger infantry units be pulled out and only smaller and more mobile teams be left in country, much like at the very start of the war. As far as I recall, he thought we should stay clear of Afghan politics and just focus on the reason for being there: killing the enemy.

rdx-fx wrote:

Removed the Taliban from government

Temporarily

Killed Osama bin Hiding

In Pakistan. Could have killed him in the first few weeks in Afghanistan - if that had been the plan, which it wasn't.

It's a tribal shithole. 
It's been a tribal shithole for 10,000 years. 
They're proud of always being the same tribal shithole they've been for 10,000 years.
It will continue to be a tribal shithole after the West leaves again.
And, in the distant future, when there are no more tribal shitholes on the planet, Afghanistan will still be a tribal shithole.

So why throw thousands of lives and trillions of dollars at it?

Lily Pad Doctrine: Small regular military bases on/near foreign soil. Self contained, regular troops stay inside the wire for the most part.  Special Operations and drones make excursions outside the wire.  In the event of a large conflict, the base can hold the forward staging area long enough for follow-on regular forces to arrive.

Like an embassy.  With firepower. And a landing strip for C-17s

Didn't work in Vietnam, isn't working in Afghanistan either.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-09-19 01:18:02)

First Iraq then this. Another war what was lost by the USA and its allies. Even the Soviets failed there!

And how many died there? No matter if soldier or local. Their death was unnecessary!

Last edited by venom6 (2011-09-19 04:04:26)

rdx-fx wrote:

• Removed the Taliban from government
• Killed Osama bin Hiding
• Got a ton of live-fire desert training for our military
• Tested and fielded a bunch of new military equipment suited for post cold war conflicts
• Revised tactics and equipment from cold war & garrison setup, to modern asymmetric warfare models

Oh, was someone expecting anything to change in Afghanistan?

It's a tribal shithole. 
It's been a tribal shithole for 10,000 years. 
They're proud of always being the same tribal shithole they've been for 10,000 years.
It will continue to be a tribal shithole after the West leaves again.
And, in the distant future, when there are no more tribal shitholes on the planet, Afghanistan will still be a tribal shithole.

While I agree with what you state the purpose of staying in Afghanistan for as long as the US has was/is to make sure that a terrorist threat will never be able to re-establish itself in that country, in this respect I don't think significant progress has been made. I believe that, as it stands, the moment the US withdraws completely (aimed 2014) the project of stabilizing and/or rebuilding Afghanistan will fail.

So then should a permanent military presence be established in the country?

Oh and the talis are being invited back into the government as per revised COIN strategy.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-09-19 04:48:29)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Didn't work in Vietnam, isn't working in Afghanistan either.

Lilypad doctrine hasn't been tried in Afghanistan or Viet Nam.

Dick "Shotgun Willie" Cheney shitcanned the concept prior to the Iraq & Afghanistan invasions, in favor of "Aw, hell.. send in everybody!"

I agree with all your posts RDX.

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

While I agree with what you state the purpose of staying in Afghanistan for as long as the US has was/is to make sure that a terrorist threat will never be able to re-establish itself in that country, in this respect I don't think significant progress has been made. I believe that, as it stands, the moment the US withdraws completely (aimed 2014) the project of stabilizing and/or rebuilding Afghanistan will fail.

So then should a permanent military presence be established in the country?

Oh and the talis are being invited back into the government as per revised COIN strategy.

Trying to insure that a terrorist threat never reestablishes itself is a futile task.
We cannot change their social structure, we're daft to think we can change their politics.

As I stated before, leave the civilians alone to have their culture and politics.
If their government becomes a military threat to the US, we take their military and government out while leaving the civilian infrastructure untouched. 
In, out, done in two months - then leave.
Leave a note on our way out, "Try to elect someone that'll play nicer next time. - Uncle Sam"

Forget this bullshit futile nationbuilding.
They don't want it, they just want to fleece money out of us.
Ali Fucking Babba

Basically, the approach to the war in Afghanistan constitutes as a massive waste of time because some of the objectives were unrealistic.

Stating that does however mean you're making a tradeoff. That being, for not having to involve yourself in local politics, the threat that caused the attacks which got you in the country in the first place will not be eliminated and instead be given the opportunity to prepare further attacks (the threat and the local social issues were not unrelated, you adress one but not the other). To complicate matters, because this is an ideological war of sorts, a quick "hit and run" type of strategy may just as well "give them an excuse to blame their bullshit on your army" (as you stated). Arguably that sort of thing will be worse if you're not present than if you were; the forces in the country could use your brief presence to fuel propaganda and justify their radical stances unopposed.

While I did state that what has been done so far in Afgh was not effective (that is, in trying to prevent future terrorist threats from existing in that country), I'm not much of a proponent of a hit and run type of approach. It doesn't concern itself with the root causes of the problem, it may just serve to fan the flames. Further, getting involved in local politics isn't always completely pointless, there are many instances throughout history in which domestic politics were manipulated by foreign powers with succes. In recent history one of these instances would be the 1953 coup in Iran.

Hell, Afghanistan itself was a playground for manipulation by foreign powers for over 20 years prior to the 2001 invasion.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-09-19 12:02:10)

Shocking wrote:

Hell, Afghanistan itself was a playground for manipulation by foreign powers for over 20 years prior to the 2001 invasion.

And it's still a tribal shithole.

Kinda tells you they're happy with their inhospitable little shithole just the way it is.
Leave them to it.

CIA needs to remember the concept of Plausible Deniability.
In other words, do your meddling on your own budget, and if one of your Ivy League college frat boys gets himself fucked - Uncle Sam never heard of him.

Lillypad doctrine to enable quick reaction when needed,
Intelligence agencies actually providing usable intelligence (scrap the CIA, give the funding to the NSA),
Call the US military when a foreign army needs to be disassembled,
then call the UN & Red Cross when you want to do nationbuilding.

If it is in the best interests of the world, to change the culture of a nation, then the world should foot the bill.
Too many things to fix with our own infrastructure - rest of the world can pay for their own infrastructure and military for a while.

Not our job to fix their problems.
It is the job of the US military to kick the shit out of any nation that threatens the US.

I'd rather see a damned base on the moon, instead of another madrassa in Afghanistan paid for by the US taxpayer
Again, I'd rather fix Detroit.  Or rebuild our national manufacturing & transportation infrastructure.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-09-19 12:53:52)

Alright, guess we can just foot this as being a difference in opinion/priorities on what should be done. I'll agree that I'd rather see a moon base than a madrassa though lol.

But why scrap the CIA and fund the NSA instead?