What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan?

[Kiwikid]

Yep. It was those guys with the AKs. The massive military aid from another super power had nothing to do with it.

Still missing the point Feanor. I don't dispute the aid to North Vietnam by China and Russia.

In Afghanistan's context we know that Norinco arms shipments to Iran have been intercepted on mule trains being smuggled into Afghanistan. Which is why I refer you back to my original point. Take the gloves off and deal to Iran in a properly declared war.

The point you miss is that in South Vietnam it was still hoardes of little guys with AK-47 that defeated the mightiest millitary machine of the day.

If you don't get that now 35 years later you never will.

Launch another Western led war against another country in the region, to add to the list?
At the risk of further destabilising the region?

The region already is destabilised and it is not a case that if one does nothing it will come right by itself. The Iranian people don't want a war any more than the American people do but the leadership of Iran is itching for confrontation and a nuclear one at that. They will not stop unless stopped.

 

[chrisdef]

Take the gloves off and deal to Iran in a properly declared war.

You seem to think its alot easier then it is. The US is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt mainly to China and mainly as a result of its war's.
And look at Iran itself, its bigger and with a bigger population then both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

The Iranian people don't want a war any more than the American people do but the leadership of Iran is itching for confrontation and a nuclear one at that. They will not stop unless stopped.

Itching for a nuclear confrontation? Yeah im sure they cant wait to be all killed????
if Iran nuked Israel in a first strike, the US would just nuke Iran. I also think it may go the other way though too and if Israel nuked Iran in a first strike attack some Western country (or Russia) may nuke Israel.

 

[Feanor]

Still missing the point Feanor. I don't dispute the aid to North Vietnam by China and Russia.

You just dispute that this aid was what made the difference?

In Afghanistan's context we know that Norinco arms shipments to Iran have been intercepted on mule trains being smuggled into Afghanistan. Which is why I refer you back to my original point. Take the gloves off and deal to Iran in a properly declared war.

Not nearly the same level. Not even close. When the Taliban are riding around in Chinese tanks then we can start thinking about it.

The point you miss is that in South Vietnam it was still hoardes of little guys with AK-47 that defeated the mightiest millitary machine of the day.

If you don't get that now 35 years later you never will.

You're over simplifying in a way that is counter-productive to the discussion at hand. Analogies between Vietnam and Afghanistan should be limited to the lessons learned in regards to COIN operations. Any greater parallel is misleading.

The region already is destabilised and it is not a case that if one does nothing it will come right by itself. The Iranian people don't want a war any more than the American people do but the leadership of Iran is itching for confrontation and a nuclear one at that. They will not stop unless stopped.

I seriously doubt you know the true intentions of the Iranian leadership. It's also a huge leap of logic to assume that Iran, and the US, leaderships are unitary rational actors.

 

[dragonfire]

The region already is destabilised and it is not a case that if one does nothing it will come right by itself. The Iranian people don't want a war any more than the American people do but the leadership of Iran is itching for confrontation and a nuclear one at that. They will not stop unless stopped.

Ok how is that region destabilized, are you including Iraq as part of the 'region', if so tell me whose responsibility is to bring more stability there ? Or is bringing down a war with Iran the solution to the problem in Iraq. If the iraq problem is not part of the lack of stability then what is ? Please enlighten us, is there a genocide going on in Iran, is it governed by a dictator what is this problem there that deserves a WAR to be brought on to the people of Iran

How is Iran really a threat to the US or its people. Is it governed by a dictator ? Do they intent to cause hurt to mainland US ? If they have intent what is the reason behind the intent ? IF they have a reason to have an intent to hurt mainland US do they have the means ? Will Iran be able to hurt US badly or destroy the US ? What makes you sure that the Iranian leadership is 'itching' more than the US administration ?

What is your individual knowledge about this crisis - please enlighten us so that the forum can have an informed discussion

 

[STURM]

but the leadership of Iran is itching for confrontation and a nuclear one at that. They will not stop unless stopped.

Total nonsense. Why on earth would the Iranian leadership be ''itching'' for war with the West? A nuclear war against Uncle Sam which would result in the total annihilation of Iran? Do the Iranians even have a nuclear tipped warhead that can be fitted on a missile? The only local nuclear armed states in the immediate area at the moment are Israel, Pakistan and India. It's mostly taboo to talk about Israel's nuclear capability and it's accepted that Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, but Iran?

The Iranian president may be a crack pot but he's fully aware that a war would devastate Iran. As I mentioned before, a war with Iranian has the risk of not only further destabilising the region but will also effect the rest of the world. Don't believe all the right wing and neo-con stuff about Iran itching for a confrontation. No offence, but the notion that a war with Iran would go a long way in dealing with the problems in Afghanistan is equal nonsense. You need to remember that like other countries, Iran has its own security and long term strategic interests to look out for. I suggest we stick to the topic and get back to discussing Afghanistan.

Off topic but the U.S. in Vietnam wasn't beaten by ''guys with Ak-47s''. That statement is too simplistic, it's like saying the Soviets were beaten by guerillas with the Stinger in Afghanistan. It was a whole list of political and strategic factors. BTW, it wasn't just ''guys with AK-47s'' that entered Saigon in 75, it was NVA ''guys with AK-47s'', with MBTs,APCs, towed artillery and wire guided missiles. In addition to losing a lot of men, the VC's infrastructure in the South took a beating during Tet and after that the main player was the NVA.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

First of all define 'victory'. What constitutes this war being put down in the W column for the history classes of 2020? If getting the win means having a modern liberal democracy with stable and robust civic institutions, adherence to the rule of law, an open, market economy and an inclusive public sphere then you have to ask whether your objective is achievable in real terms. If however you define victory as the long term prevention of terrorist operations originating from Afghanistan then you have to ask whether you even need a friendly government in Kabul.

It all comes down to your operational objective, without clearly defining it then opining on the appropriate strategy is purely an academic exercise.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Total nonsense. Why on earth would the Iranian leadership be ''itching'' for war with the West? A nuclear war against Uncle Sam which would result in the total annihilation of Iran? Do the Iranians even have a nuclear tipped warhead that can be fitted on a missile? The only local nuclear armed states in the immediate area at the moment are Israel, Pakistan and India. It's mostly taboo to talk about Israel's nuclear capability and it's accepted that Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, but Iran?

The Iranian president may be a crack pot but he's fully aware that a war would devastate Iran. As I mentioned before, a war with Iranian has the risk of not only further destabilising the region but will also effect the rest of the world. Don't believe all the right wing and neo-con stuff about Iran itching for a confrontation. No offence, but the notion that a war with Iran would go a long way in dealing with the problems in Afghanistan is equal nonsense. You need to remember that like other countries, Iran has its own security and long term strategic interests to look out for. I suggest we stick to the topic and get back to discussing Afghanistan.

I agree completely. The Iranian nuclear program is all about regime preservation and deterrence. The whole point is making Iran more secure, not starting a war with the global superpower, but protecting yourself from it.

World leaders are rarely fools, Ahmadinejad’s actions are all driven by rational geopolitical goals as are most leaders.

 

[ccL1]

I agree that Iran doesn't have any sinister plans in Afghanistan, but I disagree with Iran avoiding confrontations with the US. This may be a little off-topic, but remember the involvement of the Qods Forces in Iraq. Iran was pretty much fighting a proxy war against the US/British in Iraq. Iraq was also the testing ground for Iranian IEDs, EFPs, shaped-charge grenades, etc... against US military vehicles.

Iranian businesses are heavily invested in eastern Afghanistan, especially in Herat. The Iranians wouldn't want to compromise that situation, since it was their investment money ($500 million+) that built a lot of the new infrastructure in that area (e.g. roads, railways, and bridges).



Bloomberg: Iran Pours Cash Into Afghanistan, Seeking Leverage Against U.S.
July 16, 2008

The flags of Iran, Afghanistan and Tehran-based Abad Rahan Pars Road & Construction Co. fly above a railroad work camp west of the Afghan city of Herat, signaling another commercial incursion from across the border.

Surrounded by a mud-brick wall in the style of an ancient desert fortress, the site houses 1,000 Afghans and Iranians building tracks to link Mashhad in northeastern Iran with Herat, about 200 miles away. The line will run alongside a highway the company completed in 2006 and transmission wires that feed Iranian electricity to Herat's 350,000 residents.
...

For now, Tehran's investment of $500 million in the region has helped the U.S. by minimizing the influence of the Taliban extremists who once ruled the country and the sort of violence they have inflicted on southern and eastern Afghanistan. Iran paved half of Herat's streets and 40 miles of highway leading north, built schools and health clinics and partnered with Afghan companies in an industrial park.

``It's not just investments, but also trade,'' said Ali Shah Ahmedi, the 43-year-old manager of Herat's Tejarat Hotel. ``I have Iranian businessmen staying here all the time, coming to buy or sell goods'' such as packaged foods and motorcycles.

Sana, 42, holds forth from his office in the Herat Trade Center, a modern nine-story building of gleaming blue glass that helped inspire residents' nickname for their city: ``the Dubai of Afghanistan.'' A hotel, law offices and a finance company that supports farmers are connected by an Afghanistan rarity: an elevator.

Traffic lights in Herat work, in contrast to the capital, Kabul, so vehicles flow smoothly around the Blue Mosque, an 800- year-old, blue-tiled landmark. Herat is cleaner than Kabul, with more trees and parks, and less dangerous, with fewer visible police and troops.
...

 

[Waylander]

If Iran really wanted to wage a proxy war in Iraq than it would supply certain groups in Iraq with equipment Hizbullah could only dream of.

Iran keeps some fingers in Iraq but nothing more. It plays a clever game and I expect it to be successfull in protecting it's regime from foreign intervention.

But especially in A-Stan Iran is a very minor player so far.

 

[Feanor]

If Iran really wanted to wage a proxy war in Iraq than it would supply certain groups in Iraq with equipment Hizbullah could only dream of.

Iran keeps some fingers in Iraq but nothing more. It plays a clever game and I expect it to be successfull in protecting it's regime from foreign intervention.

But especially in A-Stan Iran is a very minor player so far.

What kind of equipment are you talking about?

 

[chrisdef]

What kind of equipment are you talking about?

Large amounts of the most modern SAM's Iran has (not sure what they have) may be one the the most usefull, and maybe some guided anti tank stuff. Im certainly not an expert but ide guess any other equipment Hezbollah would "dream of" like tanks would be like a beacon to any coalition air and would be destroyed very quickly.

 

[Feanor]

Large amounts of the most modern SAM's Iran has (not sure what they have) may be one the the most usefull, and maybe some guided anti tank stuff. Im certainly not an expert but ide guess any other equipment Hezbollah would "dream of" like tanks would be like a beacon to any coalition air and would be destroyed very quickly.

What does Iran have that's so terribly modern, that Hezbollah can't even dream of getting their hands on it? In the AT department, Hezbollah was caught red-handed with shiny new AT-14s, with some rumor of AT-13s also. In the MANPADS department Iran's newest stuff is the Igla.

 

[chrisdef]

What does Iran have that's so terribly modern, that Hezbollah can't even dream of getting their hands on it? In the AT department, Hezbollah was caught red-handed with shiny new AT-14s, with some rumor of AT-13s also. In the MANPADS department Iran's newest stuff is the Igla.

Nothing, i was basically agreeing with you. Anything that special would be much to big and attract way to much attention to be of any use in Iraq.

 

[STURM]

I agree that Iran doesn't have any sinister plans in Afghanistan, but I disagree with Iran avoiding confrontations with the US. This may be a little off-topic, but remember the involvement of the Qods Forces in Iraq. Iran was pretty much fighting a proxy war against the US/British in Iraq. Iraq was also the testing ground for Iranian IEDs, EFPs, shaped-charge grenades, etc... against US military vehicles.

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?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree that Iran doesn't have any sinister plans in Afghanistan, but I disagree with Iran avoiding confrontations with the US. This may be a little off-topic, but remember the involvement of the Qods Forces in Iraq. Iran was pretty much fighting a proxy war against the US/British in Iraq. Iraq was also the testing ground for Iranian IEDs, EFPs, shaped-charge grenades, etc... against US military vehicles.

Iranian businesses are heavily invested in eastern Afghanistan, especially in Herat. The Iranians wouldn't want to compromise that situation, since it was their investment money ($500 million+) that built a lot of the new infrastructure in that area (e.g. roads, railways, and bridges).

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.

 

[Saif1]

Both Saif1 and ccL1 make valid points. The truth of it is that there is a turf war between Iran and Pakistan happening there and that is why NATO is involved.

My take on this is:


1. Take out Iran's nuclear threat with a proper war.

2. Invite Uzbekistan to annex the northern half of Afghanistan and creat a homogenus Uzbek nation.

3. In the south allow Pakistan to annex the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and dissolve the nation entirely

man you have taken my words, and with your first point i'm totally agree Iran is a threat not to western countries only but also its neighbor countries believe me relations with Iran is too difficult or maybe because of Ahmadinejad policy (i'm not creating waves here here just giving my point of view / and i dont mean to be offensive)

 

[A.Mookerjee]

There is no military strategy which will hold over a period of time in Afghanistan. No nation wants to hold Afghanistan on a military point of view. The British decided that Afghanistan had nothing to offer the British Empire, and was not worth trying to conquer. Perhaps, this has to do with the mindset of the people of Afghanistan. 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. Russia, and the British Empire, decided to keep Afghanistan as an independent buffer state between themselves(Russia, and British India). As a result, Afghanistan has not grown as a nation, ideologically, materially, or in any other way. It seems that Afghanistan is around to fill the space on the world atlas. I personally believe, that the people of Afghanistan are a great people, and should be communicated with, on mutual terms. The world should help Afghanistan go forward, and not because it would be beneficial to the world, because it is not.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

There is no military strategy which will hold over a period of time in Afghanistan. No nation wants to hold Afghanistan on a military point of view. The British decided that Afghanistan had nothing to offer the British Empire, and was not worth trying to conquer. Perhaps, this has to do with the mindset of the people of Afghanistan. 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. Russia, and the British Empire, decided to keep Afghanistan as an independent buffer state between themselves(Russia, and British India). As a result, Afghanistan has not grown as a nation, ideologically, materially, or in any other way. It seems that Afghanistan is around to fill the space on the world atlas. I personally believe, that the people of Afghanistan are a great people, and should be communicated with, on mutual terms. The world should help Afghanistan go forward, and not because it would be beneficial to the world, because it is not.

That's why the US does not have an intention to "hold" Afghanistan. It was, and likely will continue to be the goal of the Obama administration to eventually withdraw most, if not all, US troops from the region. The current objectives of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is to combat the Taliban insurgency, build local infrastructure, and stabilize the nation enough for it to be independent and self-governing.

As for Afghanistan being strategically unimportant, that isn't entirely true. Afghanistan borders Pakistan, Iran, and China, all of whom are important/influential powers on the world stage. The country itself may be a pile of rocks, mountains, and wilderness, but its mere geographic location has strategic significance.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

That's why the US does not have an intention to "hold" Afghanistan. It was, and likely will continue to be the goal of the Obama administration to eventually withdraw most, if not all, US troops from the region. The current objectives of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is to combat the Taliban insurgency, build local infrastructure, and stabilize the nation enough for it to be independent and self-governing.

As for Afghanistan being strategically unimportant, that isn't entirely true. Afghanistan borders Pakistan, Iran, and China, all of whom are important/influential powers on the world stage. The country itself may be a pile of rocks, mountains, and wilderness, but its mere geographic location has strategic significance.

Perhaps, there is something more to the strategic position of a nation, than it's bordering nations. For example, her trade routes, her trading partners, etc. And by the way, you will find some of the most fertile strips of land in Afghanistan. Does Afghanistan, even today, find any interest in those matters which interest the world? Iran may take a lot of interest in Afghanistan, and in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, but, does Afghanistan do the same, on account of her own security? For a nation to be interesting, diplomatically, she must be willing, and hence capable to exchange in a mutually beneficial manner. Afghanistan has never had very cordial relations with any of her neighbours. India is an exception, but India is not a neighbour of Afghanistan.

 

[Waylander]

What kind of equipment are you talking about?

I for example thought of MANPADs. Right now the insurgents in A-Stan don't have access to a lot of them and even older Iglas would be a big problem if the insurgents have enough of them.

Modern ATGMs like Kornet are also a point. Hizbullah had some of them but the majority of their ATGMs was of older types like sagger.

But I agree that my comment may have been a bit over the top. Even the same support for the Afghani insurgents like Hizbullah gets would result in a lot of problems for ISAF and OIF forces. Especially ATGMs, even old ones, would, with proper training, result in alot of casualties.