The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:56:46 -0000

I don't usually like to claim greater knowledge, understanding, insight, or inside knowledge.

But I am struck that not one person articulated why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what is really going on.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not retaliation for 9/11. Nor were they directly about al Qaida.

After all, an existential threat is always something that grew from an ignored situation, like the fire that burns a house down starts from not doing anything about exposed wires, smoking, etc.

9/11 changed the US' policy from treating terrorism as a criminal act to treating it as an act of war.

That means all terrorism, any terrorism, any where, can earn a military response. Not every act of terorrism everywhere, because taht is beyond our resources.

So we prioritized.

The group that authored the attack was in Afghanistan, sheltered by regime (a terrorist regime itself).

Take 'em out. Occupy the nation to make sure they don't come back.

Where next?

Iraq had no provable, direct connection to 9/11, but it was clearly deep into terrorism, harbored terrorists, used WMD on its own people, wasn't abiding by the terms of surrender, and is the most westernized/secular of all possible places to attack next.

Had the aftermath gone better, there would have been a 3rd.

But staying in Iraq to help them rebuild was successful in that it attracted lots of young terrorist wannabes.

It's clear as a bell: as long as we were fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan was extremely quiet and slowly making progress toward stability.

But when it became clear we won in Iraq (interesting that the terrorists see it more clearly than the American left), the terrorist pipeline terminus shifted to Afghanistan, bringing it into play again.

There is no good war/bad war. There is one war: The Long War.

We will win in Afghanistan when the terrorists realize they can no longer destabilize the society, when the citizens react toward them in anger rather than fear. When the terrorists shift to another location, we will have won in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and we can follow them to the next location if we want. Probably Pakistan, maybe China, maybe one of the other 'stans.

At some point (and it may end with Afghanistan), the terrorists will realize they cannot defeat the US, that Allah is not with them in their quest to destroy the West and use terrorism to impose Sharia and the Caliphate worldwide, and they will turn to other pursuits.

President Obama's dithering is making things worse, because it is giving the terrorists time to regroup and reconstitute, and because it is giving terrorists hope that the US has returned to the craven US that chickened out in Somalia.

Every day that President Obama delays, the resolve of Islamic terrorists increases. There have been a lot of days already.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:27:57 -0000

Nothing?

How about the fact that they are world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism (in both # of groups and $)?

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:25:54 -0000

Viet Nam was winnable.

Cowardice has an effect that is different than courage, yes, but the result of cowardice is not destiny.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:05:03 -0000

@Steve,

No. In war, a bad decision now is better than a perfect decision later.

Opportunities are gone in days, and President Obama has dithered for months, for no good reason.

There has been no new information/circumstances in Afghanistan since before President Obama took office.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Shelby — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:47:29 -0000

Obama did indeed have access to a vast amount of information about "facts on the ground" even during the primaries; it was all over the place. All you had to do was pick it up. Start with Michael Yon and the other independents, plus the American, British, and other journalists; pick the brains of retired military; etc.

Sure, after you win the election you have access to more information, but you've already laid the groundwork and formed a general notion of the intended course of action. After Nov. 4, though, Obama was fully plugged in. If this was indeed the dramatic priority he insisted it was, he could easily have had a final policy in place by Jan. 20, two and a half months after he won and had unlimited access to the same info Bush did.

Now, it's nearly 10 months later, and he still doesn't know what the hell he wants to do. IT ISN'T THAT COMPLEX. If this was important to him, he could have issued an order on 1/20 as good as any he can make now. If he gives a rat's ass about the outcome in Afghanistan, he should have decided long ago. If he doesn't it's even easier - just pull a choice out of a hat. The only explanation that fits ALL the facts is utter incompetence.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Shelby — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:40:54 -0000

Well, yes, that would be why I said that was the only US interest in going that route. HAVING DONE SO, the question is, what now? Finish the job, or pull out having accomplished the negative aspects of the task but not the positive?

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

stuart abrams — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:37:54 -0000

1. The claim about the timing of the missile defense announcement is a bit of a canard. The story was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, apparently by somebody in the government who disagreed with the decision. The intention had been to advise the Eastern European governments privately and then announce the decision publicly the following week. Once it appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration went public. The decision was strongly supported by Bob Gates, hardly some pinko weakling. Again, the decision was not made for use as a bargaining chip Russia; the decision was made because it was the right decision.

2. The US currently has 200 disputes pending before the World Trade Organization, 97 brought by the US and 103 brought against the US. Of those, only 5 were brought by China. Not much of a trade war. That's how free trade works. It's not anarchy, it's the rule of law. Countries enter into trade agreements, and when there are disputes as to whether there has been a violation, you take it to the WTO, where you win some and you lose some.

3. Instead of just repeating everything that Limbaugh or Hannity says, you might try thinking occasionally. It really is a lot more interesting.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Finn Alexander — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:56:15 -0000

There are no good options in Afghanistan regardless of who is in power. Every path you take, whether arming up, or phasing down, presents some setbacks and an unclear path to fixing a wreck of a country.

Obama presented Afghanistan as "the good war" which does not mean you necessarily keep fighting it. The fact that you are deliberating at all (instead of just arguing for a pullout) is consistent with his pre-presidential thoughts.

Also, there is always political consideration. A politician does not want to go down as being the guy who got a bunch of people killed, and without actually winning anything worthy of the costs (in time, lives and money). If Obama quickly sends troops, and things get worse, he is damned. If he does nothing, he is damned, and if he reduces troops, he is damned. It takes time to figure out which is the best damnation in terms of your own reputation (and nobody maintains a great reputation by destroying lives or harming the U.S. as a whole).

Ultimately regardless of party the person in office wants a good outcome for the country, but often the reasoning or set of assumptions is quite off. (And we can reject the idiocy of those, left and right, who begin their analysis with the idea of some vast evil intent on the part of the president...as in, "He is dithering to destroy America").

We always assume that those in power are vastly different from us in motivation and that they would do things in office (collapse the country) that we would never, ever consider doing if we had the job. We take the least likely motivations and move them up into slot one as the explanation for everything.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Billy Oblivion — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:07:10 -0000

SA:

Of COURSE it was appeasement, otherwise why announce it on the anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland, why announce it to the SURPRISE of the two countries slated to receive these systems, why do it when "The Bear" is trying to "awaken" and retake it's former empire?

And why be so utterly shocked when Ms. Clinton comes back from Russia empty handed and unable to sit down for a week.

And if our ties with China are currently so wonderful, why are they taking us to Trade Court? I realize this could just be internal politics on both sides, but still.

Obama hasn't done anything to piss France off, other than be more of a wimp than they are. Which is saying something.

What he did to England (at least publically) was to return the Churchill bust, and give some rather shoddy gifts that were either deliberately insulting, or so poorly thought out as to be insulting (region 1 encoded DVDs apparently purchased at Walmart etc.).

He's treated our allies like barely tolerated relatives, and treated our enemies like long lost siblings. Given the nature of the two sets this is either complete irrational, or very suspect.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

citizen99 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:02:02 -0000

Clearly the task of the US is made more difficult proportionally to the level of corruption of the Afghan government.

What I am asking is if it likely President Obama wants to reduce/remove American forces and not suffer the political consequences of ending the war in a manner that is likely to be perceived by a large portion of the public as a failure. One way to do this might be to shift the failure to the Afghan government.

I asked if independent voters will see this as a bait and switch because candidate Obama was very clear the Afghan war was one of necessity, as opposed to the Iraq war, and IF President Obama withdraws the forces they may wonder why it no longer is necessary.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

derek — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:26:47 -0000

>Of course there will be negative consequences for the Afghan's if we leave.

I predicted before the election that Obama would end up in the 'rubble don't make trouble' camp.

We shall see. I'm glad you recognize that there will be serious consequences for the Afghans.

I would hope that 'progressives' would consider that important.

Derek

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

MoReport — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:12:25 -0000

Anybody for a White Russian ?

No, it is not a mixed drink,

it is one of the opponents

to the Red Russians, whom

we left to be butchered,

when we brought our

Expeditionary Force home.

Unavoidable then, not so much now,

particularly with those Pakistani

Nukes in the equation, and the

option of giving the Tribes targeted

help in resisting their enemies,

both foreign and domestic.

Dr. Pournelle suggests buying the

Poppy crop, right out of the fields;

Now _that_ is stimulus. :)

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

mj — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:11:59 -0000

"I don't know whether this is the correct decision, either strategically or morally. ... However, I do think that Barack Obama has to be congratulated on two things: courage, and a willingness to accept that there are sunk costs."

The worst conclusion I have ever read on this website even including commenters. I don't know the answer either. But this decision shows the complete duplicity of Barack Obama who when campaigning claimed this was the good war liberals supported while Iraq was the distraction. This proves he lied about his beliefs on the war for campaign purposes and you're congratulating him.

Beyond sad.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

MoReport — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:01:44 -0000

@ ian: Whoops, wrong village.

What village, ian ?

The Techies have already demonstrated

prototype hardware that could be

developed into the sort of Micro-bots

shown in "Minority Report" (The movie,

not the commenter :)

Scan eyeball, match to known Terrorist,

terminate with extreme prejudice.

As to cost, review the price curve for

microcomputers over the last 10 years.

As to countermeasures, does the acronym

HARM ring a bell, loudly ?

No, ian, this meme is neither new, nor

original to me; Unwelcome to you, maybe:

Guerrilla warfare and Terrorism are

about to be overtaken, and run over,

by technology; Roadkill on the Highway

to the future.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Nimed — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:32:45 -0000

Forgot to say this - if you're feeling impatient watching the video, skip to around minute 6.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Nimed — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:29:15 -0000

1) You optimistically assume that South Vietnam would be South Korea 2. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Interventions shouldn't consider only best-case scenarios.

2) If you consider that improving living conditions in other countries is an important and worthy goal, you should take into consideration the opportunity cost of resources spent. Here's a guy attempting to do just that. You should love this fellow - he concludes that we shouldn't spend any money fighting AGW (although, unlike you, he accepts the reality of the phenomenon).

3) In general, whenever we have troops fighting in a foreign land, one basic concern should simply be: does the local population want us around? Sometimes this can be difficult to ascertain. But, in the endless debates regarding the merits of our military interventions, this is often not even a topic of discussion.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

steve — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:38:52 -0000

So you are saying that having a corrupt AFG government is not an impediment to our success in AFG?

Bait and switch implies that Obama was planning this all along. There is another alternative -- that he is making decisions based on a dynamic situation, or that his original thinking was off target. But of course,anybody who changes his position EVER is a waffler, and Bush was such a great president because he never waffled, which was really awesome because all of his decisions were so fantastic.

Although my example illustrates Bush as the example of foolishness, this is just an example -- look at the wise decision of his father NOT to occupy Iraq (i.e. - The important thing is the principle of making decisions carefully and being courageous enough to change course when you think changing course is the best way, even as you know you will be called a 'ditherer'). The party of the decision maker is not important.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

steve — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:29:45 -0000

Of course, there will be negative consequences for the Afghan's if we leave. But Obama isn't the leader of Afghanistan, he is the leader of the United States and his job is to protect our interests first. He inherited a war that was a mess. He hasn't made it less of a mess and he is now considering the best policy to minimize damage to the US, and yes that might be at the expense of AFG -- would you rather it be the reverse?

Afghanistan is obviously a very difficult problem, which is why he's taking his time on this decision -- Colin Powell thinks it's a good idea to deliberate, but are we sour on Colin Powell now that he supported Obama even though everyone on both sides loved Colin before that? Or do we now ignore a great American like Powell because he supported Obama for pres (as Rush contends)?

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

TallDave — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:08:41 -0000

It is sort of amazing what happened.

1) Tet wiped out the VC, and by bombing NV and mining Haiphong harbor, we forced the NV to sign a treaty, which was guaranteed by the threat of renewed bombing/mining as well as our aid to the South.

2) Congress announced that under no circumstance would we start bombing or mining again, and cut off all aid to the South.

3) The inevitable occurred.

Looking at the jewel of prosperity and freedom S Korea became, one can't help but weep for what a free SV could have been...

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

citizen99 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:52:12 -0000

Two quick thoughts.

Is President Obama planning on removing the troops from Afghanistan and blaming President Karzi for having such a corrupt government the U.S. could never win?

Also, if President Obama denies substantial reinforcements will independent voters not think of this as a bait and switch after candidate Obama was so aggressive on prosecuting the Afghan war?

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

stuart abrams — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:53:20 -0000

"It’s now taken longer for Barack Obama to evaluate General McChrystal’s plan than it took George W. Bush to overthrow the Taliban after the September 11 attacks".

Isn't that exactly the point? Eight years later and the Taliban is still around, al Qaeda and Bin Laden are still around, and Afghanistan is not in much better shape than it was in 2001. Isn't it better to think before you act, so that what you do has some possibility of actually achieving your goals?

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

stuart abrams — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:44:31 -0000

You won't hear me defending Jimmy Carter - bad President, very bad politician. I rather doubt that he is Obama's role model. Actually, if you injected Obama with truth serum and asked him which President in his lifetime he most admires, I suspect he would say Richard Nixon - cautious, calculating, brilliant, accused of having no guiding principles. If anything, Obama is probably more ruthless - he would never stand behind Haldeman and Ehrlichman the way Nixon did.

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

Sigivald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:29:18 -0000

Assuming that this war isn't winnable, the easiest thing politically would have been to send more troops into Afghanistan, some to be killed, some to kill innocent Afghan civilians.

Well, it's true that both things would happen, with any significant number of troops at war anywhere... (the former being unavoidable until we invent remote controlled robotic soldiers, and the latter until we invent a way to never get bad intelligence, make mistakes, or just plain have bad luck - leaving aside the occasional outbreak of murderousness or lunacy in an individual or platoon.)

But isn't it a bit odd that you leave out "killing the enemy" (as opposed to innocent civilians? I mean, it's not like that isn't going on (in significant numbers!), and kinda directly related to the task at hand, no?

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

MikeR — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:24:09 -0000

Your comments on Vietnam are wrong.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view592.html#lessons

"Those who hadn't known that the US won the war in Viet Nam especially need to read this."

Re: Afghanistan: Go Big and Go Home

ian — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:23:45 -0000

The good news is that the US will, over the next

few years, and design iterations of unmanned vehicles,

develop the capability to find its enemies wherever

they hide, and to defend its friends against them;

Guerrilla warfare will become a suicidal exercise

in futility.

The bad news is that they are expensive and will be of diminishing effectiveness once the opposition learns to use spoofing and countermeasures. We will see a lot more of 'whoops, we thought this village was a terrorist training camp'.