Dear Jim

[NATO AIR]

Accept reality on Afghanistan and achieve a victory, otherwise, stand by for defeat.

http://d-n-i.net/lind/lind_10_03_06.htm

On War #186
October 3, 2006
Dear Jim
By William S. Lind
[The views expressed in this article are those of Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the opinions or policy positions of the Free Congress Foundation, its officers, board or employees, or those of Kettle Creek Corporation.]
The Washington Post is currently serializing excerpts from Bob Woodward’s new book, State of Denial, which reads distressingly like Count Ciano’s diaries. Yesterday’s excerpt quotes Marine Corps General James L. Jones, the current NATO commander, saying to another Marine, General Peter Pace, on the eve of his accession to the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “You’re going to face a debacle and be part of the debacle in Iraq.”
I’ve known General Jones since he was a major. He is an acute observer of the political scene, and his warning to General Pace was right on the mark. Unfortunately, General Jones is now caught up in another war, the war in Afghanistan, which is not going altogether well. Perhaps it is time to share some bad news with him, as he did with General Pace.
Dear Jim,
I hope this autumn finds you well and enjoying the rigours of chateau campaigning. No wonder the Europeans fought so many wars; they had such lovely places to fight them in.
In another part of the world, less lovely, the snows will soon bring campaigning to an end. As winter will offer some time for adjustment there, I thought I should say to you what you said to General Pace: if NATO continues on its present course, you’re going to face a debacle and be part of the debacle in Afghanistan.
It is not news to you that the Taliban has the initiative. What your staff may not be telling you is that NATO is helping the Taliban stage its comeback. NATO is botching the war in Afghanistan in ways remarkably similar to those the U.S. has employed in Iraq. It is conducting massive sweeps, bombing villages, and alienating locals. It may not be too late to turn it around; no one is better positioned to do so than yourself. But if you are to avoid presiding over one defeat while Pete Pace presides over another, you need to act along the following lines:
1. Stop fighting the Pashtun. The war in Afghanistan is in part a civil war, and the Pashtun always win Afghan civil wars. NATO’s presence won’t change that outcome, although it may delay it. If NATO doesn’t want to end up on the losing side, it needs to make peace with the Pashtun, then if possible ally with the Pashtun. As NATO’s supreme commander, that ought to be your main strategic objective.
2. Stop attacking the Taliban. Of course NATO forces must respond when attacked, but don’t look for fights. Every engagement with the Taliban, won or lost, moves you farther away from peace with the Pashtun. Drop the sweeps, “big pushes,” etc. Stop talking about body counts; those bodies are almost all Pashtun.
A story in today’s Washington Post shows the right way to do it. It reports a deal between British troops and local elders:
Under the agreement reached in the small town of Musa Qala, in Helmand province, British troops will not launch offensives. In return, the elders will press the Taliban to stop attacks, a NATO spokesman said Monday.
“If we are not attacked, we have no reason to initiate offensive operations. The tribal elders are using their influence on the Taliban,” NATO spokesman Mark Laity said.
U.S. forces in Afghanistan will hate this, but those forces are now under NATO command, which is to say your command, Jim. Make them stop doing things we know don’t work, like sweeps.
3. Remember one of John Boyd’s favorite admonitions: we don’t want to be attacking the village, we want to be in the village. Operationally, NATO’s focus should be a variant of the Vietnam CAP program. The units in the village should be backed by mobile reserves that can fight battles of encirclement (U.S. forces can’t, but maybe someone else in your coalition can). When the Taliban hit a village, the object should be to encircle them and take prisoners, not kill them. One turned prisoner is better than many bodies.
4. Eliminate all airstrikes. Not only will they continue to hit civilians, they make NATO into a monster. Every airstrike, no matter how “successful,” is a blow against NATO at the moral level of war.
5. Finally, accept that Afghanistan will remain Afghanistan. It will not become Switzerland. Stop promoting things like “womens’ rights,” i.e. Feminism, that tell the locals we want to force Hell down their throats. At best, NATO may be able to leave Afghanistan what it once was, a state with a weak central government, powerful local war lords, a narco economy and chronic, low-level civil war. It would probably help if the monarchy were restored. Anything more as a strategic objective is unattainable.
To accomplish any of this, you will need to tell the U.S. military and Washington to pound sand. Remember, you don’t work for them any more. What are they going to do to you, shave your head and send you to Parris Island?
Best Regards,
Bill
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation

 

[Annie]

Accept reality on Afghanistan and achieve a victory, otherwise, stand by for defeat.

I'm sorry Eddie, I think this is wildly off the mark. It's the 'Murtha way' which means losing.

 

[onedomino]

NATO, did you agree with the above posted article? Stop fighting the Taliban? Never! They harbored OBL and helped facilitate his crimes. Maybe thet still do. The Taliban was one of the most hideous regimes in human history. Please do not forget the serial murders they committed in the Kabul soccer stadium. The demolition of the 1000 year old Buddhas. The horrible oppression of women. We should stop fighting the Taliban when they are all dead. Even then we should bomb their cemeteries.

 

[1549]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=3418

It looks as though a victory in Afghanistan is impossible.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=3418

It looks as though a victory in Afghanistan is impossible.

Looks like our MISADVENTURES in Iraq is starting to take it's toll. Great going Bush!!!

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, y'all are right. We should just let madmen run free, doign as they please, and not concern ourselves with them until the inevitable mushroom cloud appears above YOUR city. Then it'll be "Bush didn't do anything to protect us:baby: :baby: :baby: "

Freakin' ostriches. Grow some damned brains and open your eyes.

 

[NATO AIR]

1. The Murtha way is cutting and running. This is entirely different, this is equivalent to build and hold, i.e. building relationships via a 21st century CAP program that successfully uses COIN (Counter Insurgency strategy and tactics) to slowly, steadily reduce the Taliban influence in the regions.

2. There is a serious difference between "stop attacking" the Taliban and "stop fighting" the Taliban. Right now, NATO is not only botching the war against the Taliban by fighting it on the wrong levels in the wrong ways, but it won't even commit enough troops on the ground to hold up their end of countless agreements with the US & Afghan governments.

3. I might add that on numerous occassions, this is a course of action more or less that has been suggested, indeed, strongly advised, by Afghan leaders who know their country far better than America does.

4. The idea that we can force 21st century ideals and laws on a country mired in 13th century politics, society and culture is utterly idiotic. We must let the Afghans proceed at their own pace that they are comfortable with, ensuring as best we can to prevent a regression into Taliban style harshness and oppression.

Lastly, we CANNOT fail to notice that Afghanistan has become but a sideshow in the great debate, debacle and defense of Iraq. We're in desperate danger of losing Afghanistan not only because of our often pathetic NATO allies, but our own failed strategies and utter inability since our successful Enduring Freedom campaign to take into account Afghan culture, realities and facts on the ground.

 

[Gunny]

1. The Murtha way is cutting and running. This is entirely different, this is equivalent to build and hold, i.e. building relationships via a 21st century CAP program that successfully uses COIN (Counter Insurgency strategy and tactics) to slowly, steadily reduce the Taliban influence in the regions.

2. There is a serious difference between "stop attacking" the Taliban and "stop fighting" the Taliban. Right now, NATO is not only botching the war against the Taliban by fighting it on the wrong levels in the wrong ways, but it won't even commit enough troops on the ground to hold up their end of countless agreements with the US & Afghan governments.

3. I might add that on numerous occassions, this is a course of action more or less that has been suggested, indeed, strongly advised, by Afghan leaders who know their country far better than America does.

4. The idea that we can force 21st century ideals and laws on a country mired in 13th century politics, society and culture is utterly idiotic. We must let the Afghans proceed at their own pace that they are comfortable with, ensuring as best we can to prevent a regression into Taliban style harshness and oppression.

Lastly, we CANNOT fail to notice that Afghanistan has become but a sideshow in the great debate, debacle and defense of Iraq. We're in desperate danger of losing Afghanistan not only because of our often pathetic NATO allies, but our own failed strategies and utter inability since our successful Enduring Freedom campaign to take into account Afghan culture, realities and facts on the ground.

Nice argument, but good luck. The US has NEVER taken into account the people of other nations and what level they are at, and we aren't going to. We're far too arrogant, and idealistically blind in thinking everyone wants to be like us when they don't have a clue what "us" is like.

And we're going to go about "winning hearts and minds" as usual, by giving them things they cannot produce rather than teaching them to produce them.

A few well-placed nukes would save us all that trouble and time.

 

[José]

If I was the leader of an arab/muslim country following the discussions here, I would immediately declare the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent against the US, an overiding national priority.

Sure, these nuclear threats are just farts coming out of the anuses of a bunch of super patriotic american clowns today.

But who can guarantee that they will not become the official american policy in the future?

Mubarak and all the other leaders in the Middle East/North Africa/Southeast Asia are completely irresponsible rulers.

They should already be developping a nuclear arsenal or at least making pacts of mutual protection like the one Syria has with Iran.

As Russia has already showed the world, there's nothing like a couple of nukes to put a cork in the ass of a super patriotic american clown.

 

[manu1959]

If I was the leader of an arab/muslim country following the discussions here, I would immediately declare the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent against the US, an overiding national priority.

Sure, these nuclear threats are just farts coming out of the anuses of a bunch of super patriotic american clowns today.

But who can guarantee that they will not become the official american policy in the future?

Mubarak and all the other leaders in the Middle East/North Africa/Southeast Asia are completely irresponsible rulers.

They should already be developping a nuclear arsenal or at least making pacts of mutual protection like the one Syria has with Iran.

As Russia has already showed the world, there's nothing like a couple of nukes to put a cork in the ass of a super patriotic american clown.

so tell me hose-a'.... how did that work out for the soviet union?

 

[onedomino]

1. The Murtha way is cutting and running. This is entirely different, this is equivalent to build and hold, i.e. building relationships via a 21st century CAP program that successfully uses COIN (Counter Insurgency strategy and tactics) to slowly, steadily reduce the Taliban influence in the regions.

2. There is a serious difference between "stop attacking" the Taliban and "stop fighting" the Taliban. Right now, NATO is not only botching the war against the Taliban by fighting it on the wrong levels in the wrong ways, but it won't even commit enough troops on the ground to hold up their end of countless agreements with the US & Afghan governments.

3. I might add that on numerous occassions, this is a course of action more or less that has been suggested, indeed, strongly advised, by Afghan leaders who know their country far better than America does.

4. The idea that we can force 21st century ideals and laws on a country mired in 13th century politics, society and culture is utterly idiotic. We must let the Afghans proceed at their own pace that they are comfortable with, ensuring as best we can to prevent a regression into Taliban style harshness and oppression.

Lastly, we CANNOT fail to notice that Afghanistan has become but a sideshow in the great debate, debacle and defense of Iraq. We're in desperate danger of losing Afghanistan not only because of our often pathetic NATO allies, but our own failed strategies and utter inability since our successful Enduring Freedom campaign to take into account Afghan culture, realities and facts on the ground.

NATO, our opinions seriously diverge on this topic. You cannot negotiate with barbarians at the gate. You either kill them or they kill you. “Stop attacking” the Taliban?” So they can attack us with impunity and IED our troops? No way. We must press the attack until their leaders are dead and they have zero will to fight. This “stop attacking” strategy has been suggested by Afghanistan leaders? Would these be the same “people” that fight for the highest bidder, treat women as though they were less than human, and did nothing while men and women were summarily shot in the head in front of diseased crowds at the Kabul soccer stadium? The same leaders that have allowed Afghanistan to become by far the world’s main supplier of heroin? The same leaders who let OBL use Afghanistan as a base from which to murder Americans at the WTC? The same leaders who sat by and did nothing while barbarians blew up one of the world’s great cultural treasures in the 1000 year old Buddhas? The hell with them and what they suggest. It is far from “idiotic” to insist that Afghanistan join the rest of the world in the 21st Century. The Afghan train has left the 13th Century station and there is no going back. Stop attacking the Taliban? Not while any of them are still alive!

 

[manu1959]

NATO, our opinions seriously diverge on this topic. You cannot negotiate with barbarians at the gate. You either kill them or they kill you. “Stop attacking” the Taliban?” So they can attack us with impunity and IED our troops? No way. We must press the attack until their leaders are dead and they have zero will to fight. This “stop attacking” strategy has been suggested by Afghanistan leaders? Would these be the same “people” that fight for the highest bidder, treat women as though they were less than human, and did nothing while men and women were summarily shot in the head in front of diseased crowds at the Kabul soccer stadium? The same leaders that have allowed Afghanistan to become by far the world’s main supplier of heroin? The same leaders who let OBL use Afghanistan as a base from which to murder Americans at the WTC? The same leaders who sat by and did nothing while barbarians blew up one of the world’s great cultural treasures in the 1000 year old Buddhas? The hell with them and what they suggest. It is far from “idiotic” to insist that Afghanistan join the rest of the world in the 21st Century. The Afghan train has left the 13th Century station and there is no going back. Stop attacking the Taliban? Not while any of them are still alive!

well said........

if you are in the middle of a fist fight should you stop and hope that you are not get hit again?

 

[onedomino]

If I was the leader of an arab/muslim country following the discussions here, I would immediately declare the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent against the US, an overiding national priority.

Sure, these nuclear threats are just farts coming out of the anuses of a bunch of super patriotic american clowns today.

But who can guarantee that they will not become the official american policy in the future?

Mubarak and all the other leaders in the Middle East/North Africa/Southeast Asia are completely irresponsible rulers.

They should already be developping a nuclear arsenal or at least making pacts of mutual protection like the one Syria has with Iran.

As Russia has already showed the world, there's nothing like a couple of nukes to put a cork in the ass of a super patriotic american clown.

Padilla is back.

 

[José]

Originally posted by manu1959
so tell me hose-a'.... how did that work out for the soviet union?

Well, they were never nuked, were they?

The SU eventually collapsed when a new generation of soviet leaders came to power and finally concluded that communism runs against human nature (desire to compete, etc etc) but the nukes served their purpose.

Manu, let's put my statement in perspective.

I didn't say the arab/muslim countries need a nuclear deterrent because the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

The access to nuclear weapons must be restricted at all costs no matter which state is trying to obtain them... North Korea or Norway.

I said what I said because every now and then, we have people here threatening to nuke entire arab cities because of the actions of what is basically a gang.

When the level of insanity reaches this point, I have to support the development of a nuclear arsenal for arab countries.

So please do not interpret my statement out of its proper context (threat to nuke entire cities/countries)

 

[José]

Originally posted by onedomino
Padilla is back.

LOL

Well, I did not follow the story but I think he was considered innocent, wasn't he?

 

[manu1959]

Well, they were never nuked, were they?

The SU eventually collapsed when a new generation of soviet leaders came to power and finally concluded that communism runs against human nature (desire to compete, etc etc) but the nukes served their purpose.

Manu, let's put my statement in perspective.

I didn't say the arab/muslim countries need a nuclear deterrent because the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

The access to nuclear weapons must be restricted at all costs no matter which state is trying to obtain them... North Korea or Norway.

I said what I said because every now and then, we have people here threatening to nuke entire arab cities because of the actions of what is basically a gang.

When the level of insanity reaches this point, I have to support the development of a nuclear arsenal for arab countries.

So please do not interpret my statement out of its proper context (threat to nuke entire cities/countries)

financially the SU was nuked...they leaders decided nothing the US spent them out of existence and there was a non violent civil war and the Union dissolved.
as for your idea that Arab nations should developed nukes to deter a vocal minority from wanting to nuke them....I am pretty sure they were going to develop nukes either way.....if they use them or just bargain with them will decided if they are the reasonable people you seem to believe they are.....so far all I have seen is that these reasonable people seem to accept if not encourage:

the bombing of:
US

embassies
pizza parlors
resorts
hotels
trains
busses
office buildings​

the killing of:

civilians
reporters
artists
writers​

 

[onedomino]

LOL

Well, I did not follow the story but I think he was considered innocent, wasn't he?

You are about as well informed on this topic as your posts indicate that you are on others. Padilla is in prison and his trial begins in January 2007.

 

[NATO AIR]

Again, we're not going to stop fighting the Taliban or negotiate with them. We're going to choose a different type of offense, which allows to build important allies and friends among the tribes in the area and countless villages that can learn how to stand up to the Taliban as well as feed the Afghan government or regional leader about their movements.

Above all else, we must remember three things:

1- Without Pakistan shutting down the border, the Taliban are always going to have a place to regroup. We're not going over to Pakistan, so we're not going to beat the Taliban through mostly military means. We have no choice but to try to beat them idealogically and village by village.

2- Afghanistan's prime ethnic group, the Pashtuns, feel disenfranchised from the Afghan political process and see little to no viable alternative to support their families other than poppy farming, so in our misguided zeal to fight a misguided war on drugs in Afghanistan, we're alienating the people we need the most to be on our side.

3- We're not negotiating with the Taliban, but we do need to negotiate with the village elders and tribes who ally themselves with the Taliban because they percieve the US & Afghan governments to be a temporary force in Afghan society. Given the poor commitment given to Afghanistan by the US & NATO, as well as serious political failure by the Afghan gov't to expand its rule beyond the outskirts of Kabul and a few other populated areas, this is an understandable choice. Let's change that calculus and get them on our side, much as we are attempting to do in Iraq.

NATO, our opinions seriously diverge on this topic. You cannot negotiate with barbarians at the gate. You either kill them or they kill you. “Stop attacking” the Taliban?” So they can attack us with impunity and IED our troops? No way. We must press the attack until their leaders are dead and they have zero will to fight. This “stop attacking” strategy has been suggested by Afghanistan leaders? Would these be the same “people” that fight for the highest bidder, treat women as though they were less than human, and did nothing while men and women were summarily shot in the head in front of diseased crowds at the Kabul soccer stadium? The same leaders that have allowed Afghanistan to become by far the world’s main supplier of heroin? The same leaders who let OBL use Afghanistan as a base from which to murder Americans at the WTC? The same leaders who sat by and did nothing while barbarians blew up one of the world’s great cultural treasures in the 1000 year old Buddhas? The hell with them and what they suggest. It is far from “idiotic” to insist that Afghanistan join the rest of the world in the 21st Century. The Afghan train has left the 13th Century station and there is no going back. Stop attacking the Taliban? Not while any of them are still alive!

 

[José]

Originally posted by onedomino
You are about as well informed on this topic as your posts indicate that you are on others. Padilla is in prison and his trial begins in January 2007.

Oh sure.

Knowing the fate of all individuals accused of terrorism in the world is absolutely imperative to discuss international politics.

The four years I spent in college studying political science be damned!! I don’t know what the hell happened to every individual accused of terorrism so I’m not qualified to discuss international politics and must shut the fuck up...

And this is coming from someone whose only reply to my posts so far was call me Jose Padilla : )

 

[José]

The last time I read something about Padilla he was being detained without charges for almost three years and there was strong pressure on the US government to charge or release him. His lawyers were trying to get an habeas corpus.

And this was already more info than I was interested to know about this non issue.