Is the US's position in Afghanistan precarious?

[samba]

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

 

[RobWilliams]

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

 

[My2Cents]

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.

 

[Belesari]

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.".

 

[My2Cents]

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."

 

[exPrivate]

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.

 

[Palnatoke]

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.

 

[alexkvaskov]

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..

 

[My2Cents]

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.

 

[lopez]

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.

Which history have you been reading?

 

[Cadredave]

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.

 

[lopez]

best way to win the hearts and minds of the locals and founding long term trust is to give them a taste of the third Reich?

Don't think so.

 

[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.

 

[STURM]

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.

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.

"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.....

 

[samba]

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.

 

[lopez]

"To win the hearts and minds"? Do you still believe in this mantra after so many years in Afghanistan and Iran? Alas, I don`t.

Yes that is the point of counter insurgency. Secure the population by protecting it from the insurgencies influence thus asphyxiating the insurgency. The insurgency is then cornered into either fighting the coalition head on or giving up. Neither of those options is attractive to an insurgency.


This is achieved by firstly using coalitions military to secure an area whilst simultaneously training local units to take over security for that area. When initial security is achieved the community is consulted and various projects will be undertaken roads/schools/hospitals will be built locals will be employed effective governance will be improved for the government you are trying to help. Thus tying the people to the government and if the insurgency tries to undermine the government by destroying these things the people will not thank the insurgents for it(can backfire local blame coalition for lack of security) . The Local forces take over with reduced over sight from the coalition. Coalition forces move on to the next spot and repeats the process.


Unfortunately these things take time and politicians don't realize that a certain critical mass of resources is need before you get efficiently achieved results. As such resources are so limited that all the stages of a COIN campaign aren't able to be effectively.

what do you suggest? killing anyone who presents any resistance playing into the hands of an insurgency? I think its clear how effective a body-count system is.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am getting a feeling of deja vue. The situation in Afghanistan in some ways mirrors Vietnam 1971 - 75. True the South Vietnamese and the US were dealing with an invading army, the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), but there are still a lot of similarities. The South Vietnamese govt was corrupt and the NVA had penetrated the Souths armed and security forces. The US was forced in the end to negotiate with Hanoi in Paris with negotiations dragging on for years. The NVA took care of the Viet Cong (VC) during the 1968 Tet offensive with the VC being the main force and it's ranks decimated. That left the NVA in the field with no distractions. When the US withdrew form Vietnam in IIRC 1973,the NVA just waited. In 1974it started its final offensive and 2nd April 1975 was in controlof Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) reuniting the country.

Now in 2012 the US has announced it is increasing the tempo of its withdrawl from Afghanistan. It is negotiating with the enemy, Taliban, seeking 'peace' like it did all those years ago in Paris, but again as in Paris it is a face saving way of quitting the field and leaving the mess it helped create. It isleaving behind a corrupt government just like the South Vietnamese one. Like the NVA the Taliban will just wait and take over after all the foreigners are gone.

So the question has to be asked what has the last 10 years in Afghanistan achieved? My answer would be with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight nothing, apart for temporarily removing the Taliban from power. There has been no benefit for the average Afghan, if anything conditions have deteriorated. Yes they are free of the Taliban but not everywhere and they have had 10 years of strife and war with foreigners running their country. How many lives have been lost, people wounded and maimed and how much treasure spent in the last 10 years and for what?

Hearts and minds. That was the way, and is the way to earn the trust and respect of the locals. Unfortunately that was not done and human rights abuses within Afghanistan by foreigners and Afghani security forces just creates support for the insurgency.

 

[STURM]

Well, despite what happened previously, I would presently descibe Iran as hostile to the US.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would like to add however, that there is 2 sides to the narrative and that from an Iranian perspective, it is the U.S. and Israel, who for the past 2 decades or so, who have been hostile and who have been adopting policies that are damaging to Iran's strategic interests.

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.

The question the Russians and the Pakistanis are asking is just how long will the U.S. stay focused in Afghanistan and what happens after that? Russia and Pakistan don't have this luxury as Central Asia and Afghanistan is in their backyard. Though Russia will continue, as it did in the days after 9/11, to limit U.S. influence in the region, it still shares common concerns and interests with the U.S.

ngatimozart,

Have you read Nagl's - Learning To Eat Soup With A Knife'' and Ahmad Rashid's - Descent Into Darkness''? These are excellent books on counter insurgency and on Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan, IMO, opinion shares some parallels not just with Vietnam but also with other places such as the French involvement in Algeria. What is so tragic about Afghanistan is that the U.S. missed a huge opportunity in the 2002-2004 period at a time when the Taliban was very weak and when the conditions were ripe for achieving it's national goals and building a better Afghanistan.

 

[exPrivate]

You`ve probably seen this:
Truth, lies and Afghanistan - February 2012 - Armed Forces Journal - Military Strategy, Global Defense Strategy
Off: Happy to be able to post a link at last! :smoker

 

[Pendekar]

The single biggest problem of Afghanistan, from my POV, is Karzai and his government. arrayed in his government is a member of a so called northern alliance. For those who never knew them, they were a war criminals, a thugs and a drug lords who cause such a misery to the Afghans during years of civil war. Karzai government will never be able to win the hearts and mind of the average Afghans and the insistent of NATO and UN to maintain his corrupt regime is beyond my comprehension. Why don't get someone honest for a change. What about the ex-Taliban ambassador to pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef? He seem's like a descent and reasonable man. He may make a good president.