This is a discussion on What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan? within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; @Herodotus,
^You have shared an interesting perspective that takes into account the geopolitical context of the conflict. Need to mull ...
^You have shared an interesting perspective that takes into account the geopolitical context of the conflict. Need to mull over your post a bit.
BTW, are you saying the the US will never pull out or that as a Superpower, they would want to continue to be involved in some shape, manner or form? Please explain, I'm all ears.
For afganistan or for irak it might help:
-many many soldiers for making a true frontier between countries and frontiers in a perimeter round each city, then many many soldiers for inspecting all cities deeply, fire weapons are forbiden, and each city is fully inspectionated, you need so many solciers from all the world to inspect all the houses, the ceilings, the drains, etc, no fire weapons no dinamite, to get dinamite to the cities they to get into the country first, and after get it into the frontier of the city..
-a good propaganda, in arab, talking about the rights gained, talking that god, allah,is with us, with the international coalition.
-a good system for rebuilding the country, a type of self feed (in foods) comunities that each town can have an autonomous wellness, with enough landi for crops, water for the fields, so they can work in the fields and have all the food ensured, give a present to them in shape of tv better comms for the country, better electricity etc...i can say more complete things.
-for the explosives in the roads, isnt there enought technology to scan the inmediate land and detect explosive materials hidden?
IWhat that means is that Afghanistan sits at the nexus of Russia, (1), China, (2), India, (3), Iran (1a), Pakistan, (2b), -three Great Powers and two regional powers together with the United States, which has a vested interest in the region, (or at least forced its way into the region, thus entitling it to interests). This is why Afghanistan is important, not necessarily because terrorism has, and may in the future, spawn from there (terrorism is an asymmetrical threat that does not kill many people...historically), but because of its geography
Its been said before, Afghanistan's greatest curse is its geography. What's happening now in Afghanistan and in other parts of Central Asia has been described as the new Great Game as the current situation has many parallels to the first Great Game, involving Tarist Russia and Great Britain.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
Central Asia in particular, with China, Russia, and the US. Esp. the endless rotation of removal, and re-admittance of NATO bases into those countries. But it certainly applies to Afghanistan. And Russia certainly maintains a close by presence, in Tadjikistan. So while not directly involved, there are assets devoted to limiting spill over effects.
^You have shared an interesting perspective that takes into account the geopolitical context of the conflict. Need to mull over your post a bit.
BTW, are you saying the the US will never pull out or that as a Superpower, they would want to continue to be involved in some shape, manner or form? Please explain, I'm all ears.
I would be surprised if the US did not at least keep some physical presence beyond a diplomatic one in that country-intel assets at least, or an air base, or Special Forces, etc . Because if they don't another country probably will. The opportunity is too great to pass on. The size of the presence may be dependent on the level of violence, and how much the local government protests, and how much domestic opposition there is, but I fully expect a decades-long commitment.
Its been said before, Afghanistan's greatest curse is its geography. What's happening now in Afghanistan and in other parts of Central Asia has been described as the new Great Game as the current situation has many parallels to the first Great Game, involving Tarist Russia and Great Britain.
No doubt, except this time there are more players involved and more variables are included: nuclear weapons, oil, power positioning, etc.
The strategy to win in Afghanistan is to 'seal' the frontier with Pakistan by physically deploying troops. So long as the Taliban can carry out forays or send reinforcement from Pakistan, there can be no win. Yet, it is also necessary to remember that there can be no airtight sealing and the Taliban from Pakistan will continue to filter in, but the numbers would be much less.
Thereafter, it is essential to have troops who will eliminate the Taliban who have 'filtered in' as also those who are operating in the countryside.
Lastly, there has to be troops who will sanitise the urban areas.
A huge task and a lot of troops would be required.
The strategy to win in Afghanistan is to 'seal' the frontier with Pakistan by physically deploying troops. So long as the Taliban can carry out forays or send reinforcement from Pakistan, there can be no win. Yet, it is also necessary to remember that there can be no airtight sealing and the Taliban from Pakistan will continue to filter in, but the numbers would be much less.
Thereafter, it is essential to have troops who will eliminate the Taliban who have 'filtered in' as also those who are operating in the countryside.
Lastly, there has to be troops who will sanitise the urban areas.
A huge task and a lot of troops would be required.
JMT
Hell of a lot easier said than done. That is one of the most porous borders in the region in the world for a very very good reason. Its rugged, remote, mountainous, and hard to travel in.
As Eisenhower said, "farming looks mighty easy when you're two thousand miles away from the cornfield and your pencil is your plow."
Plugging the border with conventional troops isn't an option. You have to have an FOB on every mountain, you'd have to supply the FOBs, etc. etc. Use roving special forces teams, OPs, QRFs and UAVs to patrol the border and respond with overwhelming force to overwhelm any Taliban forces they spot crossing the border.
Because if they don't another country probably will. The opportunity is too great to pass on.
That country could well end up being India, with U.S. approval. As long as the Kashmir problem and other issues with Pakistan remain unresolved, India will countinue to expand it's influence in Afghanistan. One of the reasons, prior to 9/11 the Pakistanis were against Ahmad Shah Massoud was because he received aid from India.
Hell of a lot easier said than done. That is one of the most porous borders in the region in the world for a very very good reason. Its rugged, remote, mountainous, and hard to travel in.
As Eisenhower said, "farming looks mighty easy when you're two thousand miles away from the cornfield and your pencil is your plow."
Plugging the border with conventional troops isn't an option. You have to have an FOB on every mountain, you'd have to supply the FOBs, etc. etc. Use roving special forces teams, OPs, QRFs and UAVs to patrol the border and respond with overwhelming force to overwhelm any Taliban forces they spot crossing the border.
Currently, India is doing just that in Kashmir and with far less technology than the ISAF or having the advantage that the US has wherein, the US can at will extend the operations beyond the Durand Line and take on the Taliban on Pakistani soil. Also the US will not have the disadvantage that India has wherein owing to political reasons, India does not use the Airforce (except transporter), missiles, Combat UAVs, artillery or armour etc to take on the terrorists in Kashmir
While terrorism in Kashmir continues, yet it has been to a great extent brought under control.
India has forces on border manning posts that are tactically sited running all the way from the Chamb in the South and northward to Punch, on the Pir Panjal mountains to Uri and onto Tangdhar and then easterly to Gurez and thereafter to Kargil, Leh and Siachen. To do this, has four Divisions and a Brigade. The rural areas are manned by Army Rashtriya Rifles and paramilitary (BSF). Towns are guarded by police forces.
I am sure the US and ISAF with better technology, weapons, surveillance means, air, helicopters, gunship, artillery, armour, Special Ops troops and so on, can control terrorism. However, the moot point is that troops unless in abundance will find it difficult and that is what is the real chink in the armour.
The US has controlled terrorism in Iraq, and even though remnants of terrorism are making things difficult at time, the situation is better and the Iraqi government functioning.
That country could well end up being India, with U.S. approval. As long as the Kashmir problem and other issues with Pakistan remain unresolved, India will countinue to expand it's influence in Afghanistan. One of the reasons, prior to 9/11 the Pakistanis were against Ahmad Shah Massoud was because he received aid from India.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray17
Currently, India is doing just that in Kashmir and with far less technology than the ISAF or having the advantage that the US has wherein, the US can at will extend the operations beyond the Durand Line and take on the Taliban on Pakistani soil. Also the US will not have the disadvantage that India has wherein owing to political reasons, India does not use the Airforce (except transporter), missiles, Combat UAVs, artillery or armour etc to take on the terrorists in Kashmir
While terrorism in Kashmir continues, yet it has been to a great extent brought under control.
India has forces on border manning posts that are tactically sited running all the way from the Chamb in the South and northward to Punch, on the Pir Panjal mountains to Uri and onto Tangdhar and then easterly to Gurez and thereafter to Kargil, Leh and Siachen. To do this, has four Divisions and a Brigade. The rural areas are manned by Army Rashtriya Rifles and paramilitary (BSF). Towns are guarded by police forces.
I am sure the US and ISAF with better technology, weapons, surveillance means, air, helicopters, gunship, artillery, armour, Special Ops troops and so on, can control terrorism. However, the moot point is that troops unless in abundance will find it difficult and that is what is the real chink in the armour.
The US has controlled terrorism in Iraq, and even though remnants of terrorism are making things difficult at time, the situation is better and the Iraqi government functioning.
I completely agree. One of the simplest ways of dealing with the problem is simply by putting enough boots on the ground to put an end to Taliban's ability to operate.
I completely agree. One of the simplest ways of dealing with the problem is simply by putting enough boots on the ground to put an end to Taliban's ability to operate.
Equally important as putting enough boots on the ground are the long term social and economic programmes run by the coalition aimed at winning support and having a government in Kabul that is acceptable to all the ethnic groups. As long as part of the population continue to support the Talibs and have the mindset that they are fighting a foreign occupation, IMO pouring more troops in is not the only answer. Other problems apart form the safe haven in Pakistan and the support from the 'jihadist' elements in the Pakistani military, is the financial aid reaching the Taliban from wealthy individuals and organisations in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Last edited by STURM; March 8th, 2010 at 05:21 AM.
Equally important as putting enough boots on the ground are the long term social and economic programmes run by the coalition aimed at winning support and having a government in Kabul that is acceptable to all the ethnic groups. As long as part of the population continue to support the Talibs and have the mindset that they are fighting a foreign occupation, IMO pouring more troops in is not the only answer. Other problems apart form the safe haven in Pakistan and the support from the 'jihadist' elements in the Pakistani military, is the financial aid reaching the Taliban from wealthy individuals and organisations in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Great stuff Feanor, Ray, Sturm, Herodotus. You've all got excellent points.
I'm in total agreement that having "boots on the ground" is key and that technology can only supplement, rather than supplant that. There's not much point in having a force multiplier if you don't have a meaningful force to multiply.
The challenge is to have an effective military force in-country, decapitate, disintegrate and defeat the Taliban, and provide for Afghanistan's future economic, political, and social stability. All this without neglecting the crucial civil and tribal aspects and understanding and adapting to the interactions between the social, military, and politic aspects of the War.
