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; Originally Posted by STURM
I think its a 2 way street. Most definately the Iranians have meddled in Iraq. On ...
I think its a 2 way street. Most definately the Iranians have meddled in Iraq. On the other hand lets try and view it from an Iranian prespective, there are U.S. troops on 2 of Iran's land borders and on its western flank, Iran is faced by a whole list of Arabs countries who have aligned themseves with Uncle Sam and in the 80's did all they could to ensure an Iraqi victory. According to Iran. the U.S. and U.K. are also actively supporting anti-iranian insurgents, who in Iranian eyes are ''terrorists'. Could there be some truth in the Iranian claims of Western complicity, after the usual rhetoric and propaganda has been scrubbed off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard
Even if the US withdraws completely Tehran would be doing everything it could to further its influence in Iraq. Dominating Iraq is a fundamental geopolitical objective for Iran as Baghdad is the primary buffer preventing Iranian domination of the Middle East proper. Mesopotamia has always been the buffer between Persia and the west, even back to the conflict between the Roman/Byzantine and Parthia/Sassanid Empires Persia has been struggling to control modern Iraq. Remember just 20 years ago Iraq and Iran fought a devastating decade long total war which western and Arab powers subsidised. Having a friendly regime in Baghdad is just as important to Tehran’s security as it is to Riyadh’s.
Thus you can't look at Iran’s actions in Iraq from a US centric viewpoint; the fact that the United States is the foreign power trying to dominate Iraq is in many ways incidental (apart from the two nation’s rocky relations to date). It wouldn’t be any different if it was the Europeans, Russians or Chinese in Iraq. A great power proxy in Iraq funded and equipped by the world’s most advanced military, who views Iran as a threat, is a massive potential threat to Iran’s security. Any power would do everything within its ability to prevent an outcome which would have such a drastically negative impact on their security.
No, I absolutely agree with the both of you. It is a two-way street and I hope my post you were replying to doesn't suggest that Iran is the "bad" guy. I was merely trying to point out that the Iranians aren't afraid to engage the US when it needs to. I'm trying to avoid taking sides and merely looking at it from the objective point of view -- that Iran is intricately involved in Iraq. That's all.
I'm sure if a country, say China, were involved in a hypothetical invasion of Mexico, the US would do whatever it can overtly and covertly to destabilize the invading Chinese too.
I think Iran can breathe a little bit easier knowing that both its flanks are more secure than before, with a seemingly pro-Iranian (possibly indefinitely) Shia government in Iraq and eastern Afghanistan safe within the sphere of the Iranian business and investors community.
I highly respect what the Qods Forces were able to do. Not many countries have the bravery to engage the US military head-on, but Iran is one of them. The Qods Force showed that any land vehicle - Bradley, Abrams, or even an MRAP - is prone to EFPs and the cost-benefit analysis is certainly in their favour too; i.e., the cost of an EFP is much cheaper (a couple of thousand dollars or less?) compared to an Abrams or MRAP.
Whenever I give my opinion or analysis, I try not to be biased or slanted, because there are always multiple points of view to any story. I apologize if my post suggested otherwise.
The USSR wanted to subdue Afghanistan, but for no strategic reason, which can be fathomed by me. The nation of Afghanistan, under the King, was of no importance, strategically, commercially, or for any other reason. .
Aghanistan was of great strategic importance to the USSR by virtue of geography, being on it's southern flank. What the Soviets feared most was simliar unrest and social changes breaking out in the Soviet Central Asian republics. This reason played a big part in the Soviet military involvement, to subdue the guerillas and ensure the survival of a subserviant, ''friendly' socialist government in Kabul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Mookerjee,196489
Pehaps this has to do with the mindset of the people of Afghanistan
The reason a whole list of foreign armies have been involved in Afghnistan over the centuries is because of the country's strategic location, not because of the local 'mindset''.
Given a choice, like most people, Afghans would be happy being left alone, free of foreign troops on their soil.
Building democracy in Afghanistan is a recipe for a Theocracy, or a dictatorship with a sop to the Islamic moderates. In Afghanistan democracy will not build a liberal regime.
The west will never build anything resembling a western democratic state in Afghanistan.
First thing to do is to forget about that.
Second thing to do is try to identify the least bad option in terms of the kind of government that will take hold.
At the moment that means a lot of very poor options. 30 years of incessant warfare has served to radicalize a large segment of the population.
The minimum is a government that will not be a threat to american interests. IE a government that will not support or host terrorists that want to attack the US.
IMO that means starting talks with the Taliban and other Islamics insurgents in the view to bringing about a ceasefire.
The big problem is Karzai is despised by most of the country. The failures of past policies haunt the most prudent options for the future.
But it seems the US has abandoned any credibility by standing by while Karzai stole the election.
Its hard to over estimate how poor america's options are going forward.
But at least Afghanistan does not and will not pose any kind of real strategic threat to anyone apart from there selves, which begs the question what is the west doing there!
What a terrible waste.
And what keeps the extremists busy when the allies leave? They may fight for some years to reoccupy the country but in the end they might very well end up in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Building democracy in Afghanistan is a recipe for a Theocracy, or a dictatorship with a sop to the Islamic moderates. In Afghanistan democracy will not build a liberal regime.
The west will never build anything resembling a western democratic state in Afghanistan.
First thing to do is to forget about that.
Second thing to do is try to identify the least bad option in terms of the kind of government that will take hold.
At the moment that means a lot of very poor options. 30 years of incessant warfare has served to radicalize a large segment of the population.
The minimum is a government that will not be a threat to american interests. IE a government that will not support or host terrorists that want to attack the US.
IMO that means starting talks with the Taliban and other Islamics insurgents in the view to bringing about a ceasefire.
The big problem is Karzai is despised by most of the country. The failures of past policies haunt the most prudent options for the future.
But it seems the US has abandoned any credibility by standing by while Karzai stole the election.
Its hard to over estimate how poor america's options are going forward.
But at least Afghanistan does not and will not pose any kind of real strategic threat to anyone apart from there selves, which begs the question what is the west doing there!
What a terrible waste.
This is what I meant about defining what victory means. Why exactly are we in Afghanistan in the first place? To install liberal democracy or simply to prevent terrorist attacks on western nations? In my opinion we have lost focus on the latter by assuming it is dependent upon the former. Do we really need a democratic government in order to prevent real secure basing for Al-Qaeda et al? If a liberal democracy is unachievable and unnecessary then what are we doing trying to build one? Neo-Conservatism at work?
The two fundamental questions which need answering are, IMHO:
1) What achievable form of government will prevent the situation we had prior to 9/11?
2) Even if the situation did revert to the pre 9/11 status, would we be able to prevent any large-scale terrorist operations via indirect means (increased intelligence budget, UAV operations ect)?
Until we answer both of those definitively we will simply be chasing our tails Vietnam style.
This is what I meant about defining what victory means. Why exactly are we in Afghanistan in the first place? To install liberal democracy or simply to prevent terrorist attacks on western nations? In my opinion we have lost focus on the latter by assuming it is dependent upon the former. Do we really need a democratic government in order to prevent real secure basing for Al-Qaeda et al? If a liberal democracy is unachievable and unnecessary then what are we doing trying to build one? Neo-Conservatism at work?
The two fundamental questions which need answering are, IMHO:
1) What achievable form of government will prevent the situation we had prior to 9/11?
2) Even if the situation did revert to the pre 9/11 status, would we be able to prevent any large-scale terrorist operations via indirect means (increased intelligence budget, UAV operations ect)?
Until we answer both of those definitively we will simply be chasing our tails Vietnam style.
Those are the million dollar questions!
IMHO, Al-Q grew up in a certain situation, if Nato ect pull out now does it follow that Al-Q will reoccupy that space again? Since they have been eliminated as a functioning organisation in Afghanistan it will be difficult to reintegrate themselves into the country, with western overwatch Al-Q will not be able to return to a pre 9-11 style of presence.
As to what form of Government would prevent that situation? I would argue that any government would be able to preform that function. Since the return of Al-Q would spell the end of it.
Going forward at least Obama has brought to an end magical neocon thinking in Iraq and Afghan, the approach seems to be more pragmatic, as long as the country has some kind of stable government next year when the US starts to pull out, that will suffice as victory.
But that will be the hard thing, Karzai would be eaten alive with out the coalition, thats why its imperative dialog is opened with the Taliban, so at least there will be some kind of broad based government there.
And what keeps the extremists busy when the allies leave? They may fight for some years to reoccupy the country but in the end they might very well end up in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Not something I feel save about.
I would imagine they'll keep themselves busy, the Taliban never managed to conquer the whole country, Iran is very important player in the north and west of the country, it was not the Taliban that attacked America, Al-Q has been eliminated as a meaningful player in Afghanistan, it does not follow that they will suddenly reappear when the coalition has left.
As for the tribal areas, why stay awake worrying, they are a long way away from American and Europe, are we to stay there for ever trying to change there societies. We've survived worse than a handful of pitiful terrorists.
Al-Q has been eliminated as a meaningful player in Afghanistan, it does not follow that they will suddenly reappear when the coalition has left.
There is nothing saying they cant come back easily when your gone. Yes they arent a big player at the moment but i doubt it would be hard to get there numbers back. And with the trouble the Coalition has had against them i dont think it would be hard for them to brush the Afghan army aside in some area's and set up shop again. One thing that should be focussed on should be Air power for the army, while i realise that alone wont win anything just the harrassment of having bombs dropped on them every day will make it very hard to set up any usefull bases.
Quote:
As for the tribal areas, why stay awake worrying, they are a long way away from American and Europe, are we to stay there for ever trying to change there societies. We've survived worse than a handful of pitiful terrorists
The tribal area's are the breeding grounds for some of these "pitifull terrorists". You also seem to forget how far they have pushed out into Pakistan (your supposed ally). Who knows what weapons (including nukes) they could get there hands on if they manage to destabilize the country much more. Just the threat of them getting there hands on nukes could also put India into a hard position where it may get involved and then there are major problems.
There is nothing saying they cant come back easily when your gone. Yes they arent a big player at the moment but i doubt it would be hard to get there numbers back. And with the trouble the Coalition has had against them i dont think it would be hard for them to brush the Afghan army aside in some area's and set up shop again. One thing that should be focussed on should be Air power for the army, while i realise that alone wont win anything just the harrassment of having bombs dropped on them every day will make it very hard to set up any usefull bases.
The tribal area's are the breeding grounds for some of these "pitifull terrorists". You also seem to forget how far they have pushed out into Pakistan (your supposed ally). Who knows what weapons (including nukes) they could get there hands on if they manage to destabilize the country much more. Just the threat of them getting there hands on nukes could also put India into a hard position where it may get involved and then there are major problems.
Worst case scenarios have a habit of blinding you to the most lightly outcomes.
But still its all academic to me, I'm not American, I'm Irish and I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to be realistic.
The new General who took over command of Afghanistan is facing up to mistake American and Coalition forces did in killing civilians. That the first step cause if civilian loses family member from a bomb from a aircraft this has affect on the youth and others who probably wouldn't fight. You going have to face the civilian in this war if you going to win. Let me explain a little more you have a 15 year old who just lose his father from a bomb he going to want revenge for what happen to his father. You have to address this face to face with the civilian. The strategy that U.S. Forces have Afghan soldiers side by side is a good strategy to show them how to work together and to show them how good trained army perform in action. The results are not going to show right away but you will see changes in Afghanistan in about a year. The General was an Special Forces officer. Also I want to add this now that the units will stay in the urban area which is a good strategy cause you just dont want take over the urban area then just leave.
Last edited by justone; May 31st, 2010 at 09:24 PM.
Reason: spelling
Information, especially classified ones, about the Afghanistan war were not quite abundant, with the exception of the occasional leaks here and there.
Therefore the public discussions about strategies were based on a modest information base.
This has changed today.
About 92,000 documents, with various degrees of being "classified" have been leaked to the New York Times, the Guardian and DER SPIEGEL. They will likely be leaked in full or in part to the general public by WikiLeaks.
Information, especially classified ones, about the Afghanistan war were not quite abundant, with the exception of the occasional leaks here and there.
Therefore the public discussions about strategies were based on a modest information base.
This has changed today.
About 92,000 documents, with various degrees of being "classified" have been leaked to the New York Times, the Guardian and DER SPIEGEL. They will likely be leaked in full or in part to the general public by WikiLeaks.
It would be nice to keep the threads largely on topic, although that might not be fully possible due to their relatedness.
I think a good fall back position for the USA would be to build support with some differant groups in Afghanstan and even Pakistan if it falls to the taliban. There are going to be some moderates and progressives that want no part of extremist religious goverments. In ten years the USA can have thousands of drones, and robot bombers like the X37, the domination systems.. With air power and some modren equipment even a small group sideing with the USA can hold their own. While I hope such a policy is not necessary, religious extremist cant be allowed to win and I dont expect this conflict to end for generations..
If the corruption in Afghanistan is so big, when did it all start and how far back in history?
Answer:
Note: One PC member that was not actively participating decided to answer this question. This member appears to be the oldest in the group.
That is an excellent question. When the Russians were here the corruption did not exist. Later, when the Taliban took control of Afghanistan corruption did not exits. During none of the previous government in the whole history of Afghanistan this concept ever existed. The corrupted government officials are a new concept brought to Afghanistan by the AMERICANS.
This same PC member did the following question: Is this DEMOCRACY? or Is this the DEMOCRACY that the AMERICANS bring to Afghanistan?. This question was answered with a: NO, a corrupted government is not democracy.
The PC member continued explaining that previously in Afghanistan it was a shame to do something wrong like: theft, kill, and any other immoral act. Now everything depends on the amount of money you have. Years ago, if someone committed something immoral it was a shame to the whole family, now if you have money it does not matter. You can get to jail but it does not matter. You just have to pay the right people, the right amount and you will be out in a couple of days. With the Taliban if you did something wrong you pay for it, the money did not help you or exempt you from the right thing. This is what the people of Afghanistan see that the Americans brought to Afghanistan. This is the DEMOCRACY that they are living.
[...]
In every form of communication, it does not matter what info A believes to have relayed to B, it only matters what B thinks that A has sent.
About the drones, what do you think the AStan people get as a message from their use?
And who do you think, that many AStan people believe to be the extremists?
American strategy is working 
