The Economist: War in Afghanistan Can Be Won

[Neser Boha]

We've had a bit of a discussion over how and if the war in Afghanistan can be won. Here's an Economist article saying it can be won - and - it adds a 'how' dimension to the discussion...

...by means of more troops on the ground (to reduce the dependence on air power and the civilian casualties it brings); through huge investment in development; and through piecemeal arrangements with local tribes and powerbrokers, including the Taliban. Pakistan, too, needs financial aid, to back up an attempt to integrate the tribal areas. Its government and army need constant reminding that Mr Zardari is right when he says that Pakistan’s battle with the Taliban is not being fought on America’s behalf, but in the interests of Pakistan itself.

Read the full article here: How to stop the Taliban | A strategy for avoiding defeat | The Economist

This is pretty much what we've talked about in Comparative International Politics (PolSci) about 6 months ago.

Would you agree?

 

[amrchaos]

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

 

[strollingbones]

history says not

 

[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.

 

[johnrocks]

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

I don't know any Libertarians who support more troops abroad, perhaps neo libertarians like Boortz.

 

[Neser Boha]

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

I don't know any Libertarians who support more troops abroad, perhaps neo libertarians like Boortz.

I actually know quite a number of self-labeled libertarians who are for more troops abroad...

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

If our goal there is to prevent al Qaeda and its affiliates from reestablishing a safe base of operations from which to launch attacks against us and our allies, then we have already won. Conversely, if that remains our goal, then if we leave and the Taliban and al Qaeda reestablish themselves in Afghanistan, then we have lost.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Actually, one should take a more comparitive look at the two conflicts--The one between Afgan and Russia with the one between the Taliban/Al qaeda and the US.

The Russians wanted control--which meant Russifying Afghanistan and changing their identity. This lead to the fundemental clash of identity and what is considered an acceptable method of survival in Afganistan. The Russians could have won their war if it was to make Afghan a subsidary state--a state that maintain its general identity yet provide special services to the Soviets through some arrangements that does not demean Afghani's citizen or Government.

For the US, to avoid the Russian debacle, it is better to work with the people that are Afghani's and learn their background and work within their framework of how the world works. The very concept of calling this a war tends to go against what the main goal is. Considering that we are not at war with people or their custom/culture/religion--Victory is just nation building and the removal of the Taliban and Al qaeda from power. On paper, that is not much of a task. But the execution of it has been horrendous in terms on troops numbers, focus of main objectives, and other exterior interests that actually hampers the goal.

Except for some governmental/social infrastructure , the majority of conflicts should have ended, yet there are still serious security issues due to poor planning and desires that the troops have no control over. Is it "Winnable"? yes. Can we do it? Depends on the policys supported by the White House.

 

[Neser Boha]

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

Could you please clear this up for me? Not sure of what point you're making...

 

[amrchaos]

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

Could you please clear this up for me? Not sure of what point you're making...

Not all right wing media is full of BS?

 

[johnrocks]

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

I don't know any Libertarians who support more troops abroad, perhaps neo libertarians like Boortz.

I actually know quite a number of self-labeled libertarians who are for more troops abroad...

I don't hang around any like that, I'm sure they exist. I'm more of an "old right conservative" like Ron Paul and those plus the ones in Control of the LP movement are certainly for the most part opposed to troops abroad.

 

[Neser Boha]

... states...

Despite the weight of history in Afghanistan (the defeat of British and then Soviet forces) and the yearly deterioration in security, American commanders remain bullish that the war is “winnable”. Unlike the anti-Soviet mujahideen, they argue, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their allies do not have the support of a superpower. America has broad international backing for its actions, and still enjoys a good measure of consent among ordinary Afghans. So, for now, American pilots and their Afghan charges dominate the air, with little fear of being shot at with anti-aircraft missiles of the kind America once gave to the mujahideen.

Full article here: Barack Obama will send an extra 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan | An Afghan surge | The Economist

 

[johnrocks]

17000 more to a country the size of Texas.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Neser Boha]

The agenda is to rid Afghanistan of Taleban - an extremist religious group known for their crimes against humanity, especially against women who have also been aiding Al-Qaeda, a global terrorist organization that claimed responsibility not only for the 9/11 attacks, but also numerous other terrorist attacks around the world (Spain, GB, Indonesia, etc.) At one point, Taleban was harboring Osama Bin Laden (or still is) - the so called leader of Al-Qaeda who is rounding up all the world's Anti-West Islamist crazies under the banner of jihad against the ... well... the West.

... if I'm not mistaken...

So I guess winning would mean accomplishing the above and at the least seriously hurting Al-Qaeda. The talk has been about trying to seek out talks with the more moderate elements of Taleban and that way isolate Al-Qaeda and cut its support. Whether these talks and cooperation will or won't happen is unclear at this point, but Taleban's been rather vocal about its intentions never to engage in talks with the Western infidels. I guess we shall see shortly.

What is also at stake is Pakistan's stability and by extension - the regional stability. One could debate till the cows come home whether or not it was a wise move to enter that 'war', however, I'd like not to engage in that normative debate as it is not germane to the situation at hand. Leaving the theater right now would be a bad move on more than one front, the US AND the allied countries will have to fight/work/whatever this one out...

The truth is that history speaks loudly of the difficulties facing 'us'... so what? Should we just leave that place in an utter chaos? I just simply don't think that's such a good idea.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[editec]

We've had a bit of a discussion over how and if the war in Afghanistan can be won. Here's an Economist article saying it can be won - and - it adds a 'how' dimension to the discussion...

...by means of more troops on the ground (to reduce the dependence on air power and the civilian casualties it brings); through huge investment in development; and through piecemeal arrangements with local tribes and powerbrokers, including the Taliban. Pakistan, too, needs financial aid, to back up an attempt to integrate the tribal areas. Its government and army need constant reminding that Mr Zardari is right when he says that Pakistan’s battle with the Taliban is not being fought on America’s behalf, but in the interests of Pakistan itself.

Read the full article here: How to stop the Taliban | A strategy for avoiding defeat | The Economist

This is pretty much what we've talked about in Comparative International Politics (PolSci) about 6 months ago.

Would you agree?

I don't agree to the basic premise that defeating the Taliban is a win in Afghanistan, to be perfectly honest about it.

I bleive that we have already proven that we can defeat these people in a conventional war situation.

But can we win the peace in Afghanistan?

Frankly, I doubt it.

 

[Xenophon]

The prize isn't worth the effort.

The west should withdraw, if al qaeda returns, bomb them.

 

[Sinatra]

The prize isn't worth the effort.

The west should withdraw, if al qaeda returns, bomb them.

You succinct response strikes to the very greatness of this nation. We have in our power to completely wipe out entire nations - and yet we do not. Even without the use of nuclear weapons, we could do so - and yet we do not.

Our enemies are quite different in that respect. If they had the power to wipe out an entire American city, to kill millions, they would do so without regret.

And therein is the problem - al qaeda knows America will restrain itself. And so they wait. They rebuild, they recruit, and then they will attack again, and all will be repeated.

That is, unless we do as you suggest, and bomb them into oblivion, but then to do so, would we remain "American"?

 

[Xenophon]

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.