The Economist: War in Afghanistan Can Be Won

[Sinatra]

Not fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we are fighting a local group of fanatics.

And again, the prize isn't worth it, Afghanistan produces nothing of value, is simply a money pit for anyone fool enough to invest there, and will always be backward.

We did the job we set out to do, nation building wasn't it.

If they want more they have to fight for it, you ccan't give freedom, people have to earn it.

I agree. I have to think that it is the threat of al qaeda rebuilding itself that is keeping Obama in the game there - he has access to information, or perhaps, a chance to capture Bin Laden. That would be a huge feather in his cap and allow him some international street cred that is much needed for him. Of course then I believe the Obama administration would not know what to do with Bin Laden if they did capture him - it would be far better if he was killed than captured to avoid that scenario.

But yes, bring the troops home now. Enough is enough.

 

[Neser Boha]

Interesting outtakes from Blowback From the Afghan Battlefield - The New York Times

"It's quite a shock," says Charles G. Cogan, the C.I.A.'s operations chief for the Near East and South Asia from 1979 to 1984. "The hypothesis that the mujahedeen would come to the United States and commit terrorist actions did not enter into our universe of thinking at the time. We were totally preoccupied with the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is a significant unintended consequence."

"So the C.I.A. says we are the University of Jihad?" He arches an eyebrow and smirks. "Why is the United States afraid? After all, it supported the faculty of this university." So it did, and it did so in one of the least morally ambiguous battles of the cold war.

Just to add another historical dimension to the discussion...

 

[Zoomie1980]

The Soviet Union had over 160000 troops there at one time, they are next door to A Stan and their empire collapsed trying. Personally, I think it's a fool's mission, we don't have the support of the people, the terrain is for the most part unmapped and we are already experiencing the worse economic turmoil in generations, let's cut our losses, come home ,regroup and fight another day,perhaps on a more covert level.

Another completely idiotic statement that shows no understanding of history or modern fact.

1) The Soviet Army of 1980 was a miserable collection of poor paid, demoralized conscripts. Like the US in Vietnam, the bulk of the Soviet force in Afghanistan were the dregs of Soviet Society, mostly non-Russians from the republics. The crack troops remained in Europe and deployed on the Chinese border.

2) The terrain is intimately mapped down to the square CENTIMETER.

3) A Large majority of the people back the US and NATO force and detest the Taliban.

 

[johnrocks]

The Soviet Union had over 160000 troops there at one time, they are next door to A Stan and their empire collapsed trying. Personally, I think it's a fool's mission, we don't have the support of the people, the terrain is for the most part unmapped and we are already experiencing the worse economic turmoil in generations, let's cut our losses, come home ,regroup and fight another day,perhaps on a more covert level.

Another completely idiotic statement that shows no understanding of history or modern fact.

1) The Soviet Army of 1980 was a miserable collection of poor paid, demoralized conscripts. Like the US in Vietnam, the bulk of the Soviet force in Afghanistan were the dregs of Soviet Society, mostly non-Russians from the republics. The crack troops remained in Europe and deployed on the Chinese border.

2) The terrain is intimately mapped down to the square CENTIMETER.

3) A Large majority of the people back the US and NATO force and detest the Taliban.

I got a choice, I can agree with people who insult, chickenhawks and government officials or I can listen to former military and CIA figures. I choose the latter.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The Soviet Union had over 160000 troops there at one time, they are next door to A Stan and their empire collapsed trying. Personally, I think it's a fool's mission, we don't have the support of the people, the terrain is for the most part unmapped and we are already experiencing the worse economic turmoil in generations, let's cut our losses, come home ,regroup and fight another day,perhaps on a more covert level.

Another completely idiotic statement that shows no understanding of history or modern fact.

1) The Soviet Army of 1980 was a miserable collection of poor paid, demoralized conscripts. Like the US in Vietnam, the bulk of the Soviet force in Afghanistan were the dregs of Soviet Society, mostly non-Russians from the republics. The crack troops remained in Europe and deployed on the Chinese border.

2) The terrain is intimately mapped down to the square CENTIMETER.

3) A Large majority of the people back the US and NATO force and detest the Taliban.

I got a choice, I can agree with people who insult, chickenhawks and government officials or I can listen to former military and CIA figures. I choose the latter.

I'm a retired intelligence officer that still maintains a top secret compartmentalized clearance. I know what I am talking about.

 

[johnrocks]

Another completely idiotic statement that shows no understanding of history or modern fact.

1) The Soviet Army of 1980 was a miserable collection of poor paid, demoralized conscripts. Like the US in Vietnam, the bulk of the Soviet force in Afghanistan were the dregs of Soviet Society, mostly non-Russians from the republics. The crack troops remained in Europe and deployed on the Chinese border.

2) The terrain is intimately mapped down to the square CENTIMETER.

3) A Large majority of the people back the US and NATO force and detest the Taliban.

I got a choice, I can agree with people who insult, chickenhawks and government officials or I can listen to former military and CIA figures. I choose the latter.

I'm a retired intelligence officer that still maintains a top secret compartmentalized clearance. I know what I am talking about.

Your a poster on a forum that I know absolutely nothing about. On the other hand, Michael Scheuer is a 22 year CIA Veteran who was head of the Bin Laden Unit, I'm reading his book, " Marching Toward Hell" now, pretty good read.

Another one I'm listening to and reading is Rohan Gunaratna who is an international terrorism expert. He is the head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. By its size, ICPVTR is one of the largest counter terrorism research and training centres in the world.(Wiki)

Another thing I rely on is just common sense, I know I hate trespassers on my large tract of land I own.

 

[Zoomie1980]

With all this talk about "winning" Afghanistan, I'd like to know what constitutes victory. What is the agenda? What are the goals?

What we know for a fact is the soviet union spent 10 years there and accomplished nothing and the last person to conquer Afghanistan was Alexander the Great.

This is exactly what I was going to ask.

This is the key question. Just sending ever more troops to region won't accomplish anything. I have yet to hear just what our goal is there. What are the terms of victory? Obama has no clue, nor do the military planners because their political leaders haven't told them. Without that, we are pissing into the wind.

 

[xsited1]

I realize Obama wants to 'win the war in Afghanistan' and will be spending billions (if not trillions) there in the years to come, but I have a better idea: Leave them alone and bring our troops home.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I got a choice, I can agree with people who insult, chickenhawks and government officials or I can listen to former military and CIA figures. I choose the latter.

I'm a retired intelligence officer that still maintains a top secret compartmentalized clearance. I know what I am talking about.

Your a poster on a forum that I know absolutely nothing about. On the other hand, Michael Scheuer is a 22 year CIA Veteran who was head of the Bin Laden Unit, I'm reading his book, " Marching Toward Hell" now, pretty good read.

Another one I'm listening to and reading is Rohan Gunaratna who is an international terrorism expert. He is the head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. By its size, ICPVTR is one of the largest counter terrorism research and training centres in the world.(Wiki)

Another thing I rely on is just common sense, I know I hate trespassers on my large tract of land I own.

Wow, now there's some real substantial sources. We have long considered ICPVTR to be a useful data collection organization but a useless policy organization dedicated to "non-traditional" counter-terrorism. Scheuer is nothing more than a disgruntled former CIA hack with a chip on his shoulder, who while he has a valid point concerning a fear of sending troops into a guerilla war with no mission, his distortion of facts on the ground makes him just another retiree with chip on his shoulder and a book to sell.

The Soviets Army units sent to Afghanistan were mostly class 'C' units. Every square inch of Afghanistan has been imaged to the extreme by our best KH series satellites, and most of the people in Afghanistan support NATO efforts to keep the Taliban out. Those are just the plain and simple facts.

 

[editec]

The Economists---Libertarians answer to FOX news(Direct and accurate, yet significantly further to the right!!)

No amrchaos, you're wrong about that.

The Economist is often one of the most perceptive voices about business and politics one can read.

Seriously, just because it is a very intense magazine about business, do not assume it is right wing.

I think they really are striving to be reality biased, to be honest

Believe me, we both WISH the right wing was capable of being as well informed and their analysis as penetrating that magazine's typically is.

I don't care what your political persuasion is, the Economist is a great read for those of us who like to keep informed.

As is, ironically the Wall Street Journal.

I'm not thrilled with their editorials, usually, but their news coverage is excellent.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The Economists---Libertarians answer to FOX news(Direct and accurate, yet significantly further to the right!!)

No amrchaos, you're wrong about that.

The Economist is often one of the most perceptive voices about business and politics one can read.

Seriously, just because it is a very intense magazine about business, do not assume it is right wing.

I think they really are striving to be reality biased, to be honest

Believe me, we both WISH the right wing was capable of being as well informed and their analysis as penetrating that magazine's typically is.

I don't care what your political persuasion is, the Economist is a great read for those of us who like to keep informed.

As is, ironically the Wall Street Journal.

I'm not thrilled with their editorials, usually, but their news coverage is excellent.

The Economist is, and always has been, and apologist rag for the socio-progressive, pacifistic, socialist welfare states of Western Europe.

 

[johnrocks]

I'm a retired intelligence officer that still maintains a top secret compartmentalized clearance. I know what I am talking about.

Your a poster on a forum that I know absolutely nothing about. On the other hand, Michael Scheuer is a 22 year CIA Veteran who was head of the Bin Laden Unit, I'm reading his book, " Marching Toward Hell" now, pretty good read.

Another one I'm listening to and reading is Rohan Gunaratna who is an international terrorism expert. He is the head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. By its size, ICPVTR is one of the largest counter terrorism research and training centres in the world.(Wiki)

Another thing I rely on is just common sense, I know I hate trespassers on my large tract of land I own.

Wow, now there's some real substantial sources. We have long considered ICPVTR to be a useful data collection organization but a useless policy organization dedicated to "non-traditional" counter-terrorism. Scheuer is nothing more than a disgruntled former CIA hack with a chip on his shoulder, who while he has a valid point concerning a fear of sending troops into a guerilla war with no mission, his distortion of facts on the ground makes him just another retiree with chip on his shoulder and a book to sell.

The Soviets Army units sent to Afghanistan were mostly class 'C' units. Every square inch of Afghanistan has been imaged to the extreme by our best KH series satellites, and most of the people in Afghanistan support NATO efforts to keep the Taliban out. Those are just the plain and simple facts.

Yeah your probably right, after 22 years of heavy duty ass kissing to get to where he was at, he resigned, perhaps even forced out by people who decided he had horn-swaggled the powers at the CIA for all those years, even though he thinks the last great President was Reagan, Clinton had a chance to get OBL and others are more concerned about image. I may burn the book after being informed of this, please forgive me Lord for being so blind.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Your a poster on a forum that I know absolutely nothing about. On the other hand, Michael Scheuer is a 22 year CIA Veteran who was head of the Bin Laden Unit, I'm reading his book, " Marching Toward Hell" now, pretty good read.

Another one I'm listening to and reading is Rohan Gunaratna who is an international terrorism expert. He is the head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. By its size, ICPVTR is one of the largest counter terrorism research and training centres in the world.(Wiki)

Another thing I rely on is just common sense, I know I hate trespassers on my large tract of land I own.

Wow, now there's some real substantial sources. We have long considered ICPVTR to be a useful data collection organization but a useless policy organization dedicated to "non-traditional" counter-terrorism. Scheuer is nothing more than a disgruntled former CIA hack with a chip on his shoulder, who while he has a valid point concerning a fear of sending troops into a guerilla war with no mission, his distortion of facts on the ground makes him just another retiree with chip on his shoulder and a book to sell.

The Soviets Army units sent to Afghanistan were mostly class 'C' units. Every square inch of Afghanistan has been imaged to the extreme by our best KH series satellites, and most of the people in Afghanistan support NATO efforts to keep the Taliban out. Those are just the plain and simple facts.

Yeah your probably right, after 22 years of heavy duty ass kissing to get to where he was at, he resigned, perhaps even forced out by people who decided he had horn-swaggled the powers at the CIA for all those years, even though he thinks the last great President was Reagan, Clinton had a chance to get OBL and others are more concerned about image. I may burn the book after being informed of this, please forgive me Lord for being so blind.

He doesn't think much troops without a clear mission, and like a lot of my generation is wary of another Vietnam, having just witnessed another repeat in Iraq. But he still distorts facts and his writings seem devoid of historic fact to try and solidify his viewpoints.

We are doomed in Afghanistan if our clueless President doesn't begin to provide a clear mission and conditions for victory and a strategy to achieve it. But it is NOT because the Soviets tried and failed, because we can't find our way around due to bad maps or because the populace is hostile.

 

[Neser Boha]

The Soviet Union had over 160000 troops there at one time, they are next door to A Stan and their empire collapsed trying. Personally, I think it's a fool's mission, we don't have the support of the people, the terrain is for the most part unmapped and we are already experiencing the worse economic turmoil in generations, let's cut our losses, come home ,regroup and fight another day,perhaps on a more covert level.

Another completely idiotic statement that shows no understanding of history or modern fact.

1) The Soviet Army of 1980 was a miserable collection of poor paid, demoralized conscripts. Like the US in Vietnam, the bulk of the Soviet force in Afghanistan were the dregs of Soviet Society, mostly non-Russians from the republics. The crack troops remained in Europe and deployed on the Chinese border.

2) The terrain is intimately mapped down to the square CENTIMETER.

3) A Large majority of the people back the US and NATO force and detest the Taliban.

Agree. And - for an intelligence officer or whatever you're calling yourself - it is rather shocking you forgot to mention that the ones that indeed did push the Soviets out (mujahadeen) were backed by a superpower and armed by a superpower through regional cooperation, esp. the ISI of Pakistan. That superpower is the US. A couple of historical terms: Carter Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine.

 

[Dr Grump]

This is the key question. Just sending ever more troops to region won't accomplish anything. I have yet to hear just what our goal is there. What are the terms of victory? Obama has no clue, nor do the military planners because their political leaders haven't told them. Without that, we are pissing into the wind.

That's the thing about inheriting somebody else's mess. How does one extract one self from such a folly without losing political ground when it wasn't your war to begin with. Richard Nixon had the same issue...

 

[Neser Boha]

This is the key question. Just sending ever more troops to region won't accomplish anything. I have yet to hear just what our goal is there. What are the terms of victory? Obama has no clue, nor do the military planners because their political leaders haven't told them. Without that, we are pissing into the wind.

That's the thing about inheriting somebody else's mess. How does one extract one self from such a folly without losing political ground when it wasn't your war to begin with. Richard Nixon had the same issue...

Somebody else's mess.. not exactly. This is an abstract from Andrew Hartman's "Red Template: US Policy in Soviet Occupied Afghanistan" Third World Quarterly year 2002

...examines the policies of the United States in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan in the context of the Cold War The available docu- mentation tends to support the thesis of this paper: that US policy in Afghanistan, consistent with US policy elsewhere both during and after the Cold War, is geared to protect US private power and thus US access to oil. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on 25 December 1979, the belief among US foreign policy-makers that the Soviet Union was finally embarking on their longtime mission of advancing upon the oil of the Persian Gulf and the warm water ports of the Arabian Sea was finally supported-a propaganda defeat for the Soviet Union. America's response-to finance and arm the most fundamental and dangerous Muslims that could be rounded up-is a decision that continues to shake the world. The possibilities of the resulting 'blowback'-in the form of well-documented terror and the not so well-known heroin trade-were ignored in the drive to support those who would struggle against Soviet-dominated communism. This paper details the cold calculus of US decision-makers and the negative effects on the people of Afghanistan and beyond. The rise of the Taliban can be directly attributed to this process and America's so-called 'War on Terrorism' is yet another harsh penalty the people of this war-ravaged country must accept at the hands of the world's sole remaining superpower.

... or maybe not "somebody else's mess"...

 

[Dr Grump]

... or maybe not "somebody else's mess"...

I take umbrage with Zoomie comments about Obama not having a clue. I guess I'm just a tad weary of the guy being in office less than eight weeks and he's already copping it. Bush Jnr was in office the best part of 10 months and 9-11 is still Clinton's fault, yet Obama has been in office less than a 1/5 of that time and already Afghanistan and the world economy are somehow his fault according to the neocon chickenhawks. Note I say fault, not problem. it is definitely his problem, but not his fault. There is an important difference IMO..

 

[Neser Boha]

... or maybe not "somebody else's mess"...

I take umbrage with Zoomie comments about Obama not having a clue. I guess I'm just a tad weary of the guy being in office less than eight weeks and he's already copping it. Bush Jnr was in office the best part of 10 months and 9-11 is still Clinton's fault, yet Obama has been in office less than a 1/5 of that time and already Afghanistan and the world economy are somehow his fault according to the neocon chickenhawks. Note I say fault, not problem. it is definitely his problem, but not his fault. There is an important difference IMO..

Ok, I see... that's what you mean. Well, be that as may, and I understand your frustration, and on principle agree with it... We're still there, we've already committed huge resources to it - in time, money, man-power - just as our allies have (actually Britain's been leading that one when US was bogged down in Iraq) and we can't just get up and leave the country to the dogs... My previous post basically highlighted WHY I feel that way. What's happening in Afghanistan can be attributed to US former actions under Carter and Reagan, Bush - it is US's mess - no matter who the president is.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ok, I see... that's what you mean. Well, be that as may, and I understand your frustration, and on principle agree with it... We're still there, we've already committed huge resources to it - in time, money, man-power - just as our allies have (actually Britain's been leading that one when US was bogged down in Iraq) and we can't just get up and leave the country to the dogs... My previous post basically highlighted WHY I feel that way. What's happening in Afghanistan can be attributed to US former actions under Carter and Reagan, Bush - it is US's mess - no matter who the president is.

I agree with most of your post. I do have a note of caution though and it is something I have pointed out often on this board over the last couple of years. People have to get educated when talking on the subject. Until they realise that huge tracts of Pakistan are ruled by tribesman (in agreement with the govt in Islamabad), and that the Pakistani army rule the highways, but not the byways, then nothing will get solved. The US has to get out of the "western" mindset of how govts and countries are run, and do in Rome...

 

[editec]

The Economists---Libertarians answer to FOX news(Direct and accurate, yet significantly further to the right!!)

No amrchaos, you're wrong about that.

The Economist is often one of the most perceptive voices about business and politics one can read.

Seriously, just because it is a very intense magazine about business, do not assume it is right wing.

I think they really are striving to be reality biased, to be honest

Believe me, we both WISH the right wing was capable of being as well informed and their analysis as penetrating that magazine's typically is.

I don't care what your political persuasion is, the Economist is a great read for those of us who like to keep informed.

As is, ironically the Wall Street Journal.

I'm not thrilled with their editorials, usually, but their news coverage is excellent.

The Economist is, and always has been, and apologist rag for the socio-progressive, pacifistic, socialist welfare states of Western Europe.

Thanks for your perceptive input.

With the exception of your claim that they come at issues as pacifists, I think you're fairly accurately describing their POV.

They POV is basically one which supports free trade, the end of nationalism, and the reduction of most of the world's population from citizens with rights under their national laws, to consumers with only whatever rights their money brings to them.