This is a discussion on Is the US's position in Afghanistan precarious? within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Looking at a map of south asia, Its clear that Afghanistan and the US military's stationed there are surrounded by ...
Looking at a map of south asia, Its clear that Afghanistan and the US military's stationed there are surrounded by many countries who attitude towards the US is unfriendly/hostile
Everyone knows Iran's position, pakistani relations have recently soured and they have cut land supply routes (which had transported a third of supplies), the chinese and russian's cant be relied upon and in the future are more likely to pose a risk than anything else.
The supply routes are now though the caucacus and russia (another third), the final third os supplies are flown in (over which countries I dont know)
Seems that Russia has the power to block supplies, I dont think that is likely, however planners would have to consider all possibilities, I think their position there must be keeping people up at night
Last edited by Preceptor; January 31st, 2012 at 07:41 PM.
Reason: Mod edit: title correction
IIRC isn't the shedule for the complete US removal of troops 2014?
If so, i'm fairly convinced the region will be more than content to bide their time until the US leaves, after all they would gain nothing if they attacked US forces in Afghanistan or tried to hamper supply shipments as that would just slow down the US pullout which is the result most countries in that area want ASAP.
AFAIK the biggest problem plannars are experiencing is the logistics issues of pulling out
AFAIK the biggest problem plannars are experiencing is the logistics issues of pulling out
Actually, the biggest problem the planners have is making it look like they are just not giving up. The pull out is based on a political schedule, not conditions on the ground.
Actually, the biggest problem the planners have is making it look like they are just not giving up. The pull out is based on a political schedule, not conditions on the ground.
Exactly. The truth is the US wanted to run a COIN campaign. Problem is when your enemy knows he only has to wait 3-4 years before the troops are sent home then guess what? You lost. Not militarily but politicaly. Just like in vietnam.
After all why would a afghaini village elder support the US and Nato when they Know they will be left alone with the taliban in a few years?
All the Taliban has to say is "In 3 years they will be gone......and we will still be here.".
Exactly. The truth is the US wanted to run a COIN campaign. Problem is when your enemy knows he only has to wait 3-4 years before the troops are sent home then guess what? You lost. Not militarily but politicaly. Just like in vietnam.
After all why would a afghaini village elder support the US and Nato when they Know they will be left alone with the taliban in a few years?
All the Taliban has to say is "In 3 years they will be gone......and we will still be here.".
As the Taliban says "You have the watches. We have the time."
IMHO the Soviet army was in a better position, bordering Afganistan, still they could not win. Everyone is leaving, but Pakistan, China, India are nearby and would not be leaving. So the future depends mainly on them.
Going through history, I think it's noteworthy that the only real results against effective insurgencies have been achived by a ruthless and quick use of disporportionate violence. And it has never been with tanks and guns as the principal "war winner". Victory has been achived by "gestapo methods" combined with millitary force to establish basic security for the gestapo kind of guys to do their (dirty) job.
IMHO it would make more sense for the US to refocus on transport safety and surveillance to detect and neutralize threats. The real way to win against extremists is through providing higher standards of living for the population to diffuse tensions.
Afghanistan just might have such a chance to rebuild and rebrand with India and China searching for precious metals..
IMHO it would make more sense for the US to refocus on transport safety and surveillance to detect and neutralize threats. The real way to win against extremists is through providing higher standards of living for the population to diffuse tensions.
Afghanistan just might have such a chance to rebuild and rebrand with India and China searching for precious metals..
That is what the plan is, or at least was.
The key to doing it is building up the police force, that is what provides local defense and surveillance. Unfortunately most Afghans view it as a license to steal, so their local support is nil to negative, defeating the whole purpose. Add the fact that there are not enough recruits that can read and write to have at least one in each squad, and … well you get the picture.
The key to solving that later problem is setting up an education system, but that also needs to be kept safe because the Taliban knows it will make things better all around and has been systematically targeting it.
Nothing that cannot be solved if we keep the troops there another 6 to 10 years.
Going through history, I think it's noteworthy that the only real results against effective insurgencies have been achived by a ruthless and quick use of disporportionate violence. And it has never been with tanks and guns as the principal "war winner". Victory has been achived by "gestapo methods" combined with millitary force to establish basic security for the gestapo kind of guys to do their (dirty) job.
Going through history, I think it's noteworthy that the only real results against effective insurgencies have been achived by a ruthless and quick use of disporportionate violence. And it has never been with tanks and guns as the principal "war winner". Victory has been achived by "gestapo methods" combined with millitary force to establish basic security for the gestapo kind of guys to do their (dirty) job.
Boy your history books must be alot different to the books I have to read cant remember any country that has employed those methods and won an insurgency, I wonder if these are the methods that Colonel Gaddafi used must of worked a treat for him.
Looking at a map of south asia, Its clear that Afghanistan and the US military's stationed there are surrounded by many countries who attitude towards the US is unfriendly/hostile
What many countries?? The only country that neighbours Pakistan that has and is a major problem remains Pakistan. It is Pakistan that has a strategy, to meet its own national interests, that is contrary and damaging to what the U.S. has been trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Iran, with regards to Afghanistan, has been very helpful. Prior to 9/11 it held talks with the U.S. on how to contain the Taliban, it took in thousand of Afghan refugees and at a time when the U.S. was wary of the Northern Alliance and was providing only token aid, Iran with Russia and India was a major provider of arms and aid to the Northern Alliance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
And it has never been with tanks and guns as the principal "war winner". Victory has been achived by "gestapo methods" combined with millitary force to establish basic security for the gestapo kind of guys to do their (dirty) job.
If that were the case the Germans would have have pacified Yugoslavia and the present capital of a unified Vietnam would not be Hanoi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exPrivate
"To win the hearts and minds"? Do you still believe in this mantra after so many years in Afganistan and Iran? Alas, I don`t.
Granted, things were less challenging and complex than in Afghanistan but ''hearts and minds'' programmes, when implemented properly have proved to be a success before....
It's a great pity that that in the 2002-2003 period, when the Taliban was very weak and disorganised and when the majority of the Afghans were welcoming change, the U.S. started to get distracted with Iraq. If only more troops had been poured in, a more serious effort with the Europeans [who were very eager] had been made towards development and aid projects to rebuild Afghanistan and give the locals and alternative and if only the U.S. would have placed more focus on the Taliban than AQ, things would not been in such a great mess now. It says a lot that 11 years on, after billions spent and thousands of Afghans killed, there is now an agreement between the West and the Karzai government that talks have to be conducted with the Taliban.....
Last edited by STURM; February 6th, 2012 at 07:13 PM.
What many countries?? The only country that neighbours Pakistan that has and is a major problem remains Pakistan. It is Pakistan that has a strategy, to meet its own national interests, that is contrary and damaging to what the U.S. has been trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Iran, with regards to Afghanistan, has been very helpful. Prior to 9/11 it held talks with the U.S. on how to contain the Taliban, it took in thousand of Afghan refugees and at a time when the U.S. was wary of the Northern Alliance and was providing only token aid, Iran with Russia and India was a major provider of arms and aid to the Northern Alliance.
Well, despite what happened previously, I would presently descibe Iran as hostile to the US. The only other supply routes ultimately have to go through either pakistan, russia, china or over the caspian sea (between russia and iran). I think its unlikely that russia will actively try to impede the US, but just I dont think the US can rely on any of them for future cooperation.
