To withdraw or not to withdraw

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

For those living under a rock, Obama finally committed to 30K more troops for Afghanistan and a date to start withdrawing. Obviously nobody is happy with the decision, the left want to cut our losses and the right... well the right will say anything the president does is bad regardless. 

Does it make sense to stay and increase troops? Does it make sense to pull out? What seems to be clear is that the status quo isn't working at all. Thoughts?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Haha, I just wrote a facebook comment on it.

tl;dr:
Afghanistan is the forgotten war and the one that we SHOULD have been focusing on instead of adventuring in Iraq (I think Iraq was a power play by the Bush administration's part--it has always been the key to the Middle East and his ridiculous, destructive attempt to take was mostly an opportunity to show bin Laden & co. the US's might. Hah).
Afghanistan was where al-Qaeda was head quartered and IMO it was an acceptable move to attempt to drive them out in order to end an *immediate* threat when they didn't hand al-Qaeda over after we asked. We had to remove the Taliban to do so and the fumble on our part when our attention was shifted away from Afghanistan makes me question whether we can withdraw like we'd like to. I don't think there will be something like what happened in Vietnam if we leave but I admit to not being an expert on who might face a backlash for helping.
On the other hand, from what I know, the locals don't want us there; it's the government, such as it is, that *does* and I hardly think Afghanistan's government's desires are an accurate reflection of what its people want.

We can't win a war against an insurgency without local help, which we're not getting. We can't end the threat of terrorism without ending radicalization, which we can't *really* do without fighting poverty and oppression in the countries terrorists seem to come from most. The US government is not the correct agent of action for this. Having done some reading on radicalization and de-radicalization, it's people from the West acting like PEOPLE and treating them like PEOPLE that does it.
I'd like to see more Peace Corp activity in this regard, actually. I think it's the only US arm of the government that has any place at all in this because it's about working for the benefit of the area a member is sent to; they teach English to students, help build infrastructure and are generally useful to their new communities. They should be more important than they are because of what they can do for our image abroad. The UN has a place here, too, in getting aid to people (the place is a humanitarian's nightmare!). Private charities and organizations should be involved as well.

Moreover, we have no right to tell other countries what to do so we can't directly intervene in places where the oppression is. The US cannot be involved with convincing them, either, since we just STOPPED TORTURING PEOPLE in the last year (I hope so, anyhow). The rest of the West needs to do the talking and be the ones exerting encouragement in that direction.

If we had kept the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the other groups now involved with the war in Afghanistan on the run and focused on dealing with radicalization instead of what we did instead, we might have been much more effective. If the military had listened to it's own freaking training instead of torturing people and screwing up our image, a hell of a lot fewer people would be dead.

There's already a total of 245,700 combined troops there (NATO, Afgahnistan security forces, the US, and the UK). Another 30k will do nothing if international forces who already out number terrorists more than 4:1 (a conservative estimate) can't do anything. There's a reason Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

Short version:
We've gone about this war the wrong way and it's biting us in the ass. Troops in Afghanistan (combined NATO, Afghan security forces, the US, and the UK) already outnumber the opposition by about 4:1. Another 30k isn't going to do anything.

I want to withdraw, I think. There's nothing else we can do.

[goat starer]

I would like to see the money and effort that it takes to send 30,000 troops to afghanistan spent on doing something positive in afghanistan. We pay lip service to 'hearts and minds' but in the end you have to show your answers are better than your opponents. Beefing up your fighting ability shows people only that you have the muscles to flex ... not that you have the argument won.

Its a lesson I think from both the British and Soviet occupations of afghanistan... neither really tried to build outside of the 'safe' cities. Neither tried to create something that Afghan people could be rightly proud of. The people of afghanistan will only stand up themselves to warlords and taliban if they believe in the the thing that they are fighting for.

[Griffin NoName]

I have never been able to see why They think it possible to "win". Do They really think they can de-radicalise or kill every terrorist and persuade every Taliban to stop being Warlords? Given the terrain, nothing else could be a "win".

Picking up on Scribs, how about sending 30,000 peace corps members, instead of troops, there to talk the people into peaceful co-existence on this earth. Oh, and men and women being equal.

[Aggie]

I would like to see the money and effort that it takes to send 30,000 troops to afghanistan spent on doing something positive in afghanistan. We pay lip service to 'hearts and minds' but in the end you have to show your answers are better than your opponents. Beefing up your fighting ability shows people only that you have the muscles to flex ... not that you have the argument won.

Was thinking along similar lines - with the money spent on war, could one not just secure select areas (not necessarily 'safe' ones - maybe even very hostile ones), develop them significantly (clean running water and electricity for all, schools), establish a local economy and get people right pleased with how things are.....

then sit back and say 'The rest of y'all will get this too when you behave'.


Seriously though....  someone needs to develop a not-for-profit turnkey economy organization that moves into a region, secures it, houses, feeds, educates and employs the local population in environmentally sustainable but labour-intensive industries. For areas where people aren't getting their basic needs covered, cash wages could be ridiculously low provided they were guaranteed safe housing, good safe working conditions, education for their children and enough to eat.  The organization could plausibly compete against sweatshops, indentured labour etc. in some industries, and roll all profits into expanding. It's sort of exploitation, viewed from a certain angle, but OTOH could actually drive up local standards as a consequence.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My thoughts on the subject are a bit different than the apparent consensus, yes, there is a need for more investment in Afghanistan in both industry and infrastructure and peace-corps make a wonderful work where they go but...

You can't send peace corps to be shot at.

One of the cases I heard not long ago was about a bridge build by one NATO member (Germany IIRC), it took a week for the Taliban to blow it up. To destroy is significantly easier -and cheaper- than building anything.

Question: what is the rate of policemen to criminals on the streets of a western city? More so, the less antisocial behavior you have the less people you need to control it although there is a limit, there has to be a general knowledge of patrols and a decent probability to be caught in order to have a good deterrence on crime. Moving to insurgency (and I happen to know a bit about that, you know, Colombia...  ) you can mount a very successful insurgency with a 1:6* ratio, dependent on the geography and conditions on the ground. Mind you, while the situation was bad at that rate guerrillas didn't control all the territory at that rate, but made travel between cities a hassle. In Afghanistan we are talking way more than a hassle with some analysts claiming that 70%+ of the territory is under the control of the Taliban.

In my mind if the goal is to control the insurgency a surge IS needed. A different question is if controlling said insurgency is in the best interest of the US and NATO members, which begs the question: is leaving Afghanistan like Somalia** such a good idea? Chances are that leaving Karzhai alone would only benefit the Taliban setting the country back 15 years.

And there is one last angle to consider, why did the Taliban won the previous civil war? Analogous questions could be made about the Islamic courts in Somalia, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the answer deals with a very basic problem with weak democratic systems in uneducated societies: corruption. A weak democracy is very unlikely to provide security, services or representation to the people they're supposed to care about; it's all politics, interests and backroom deals. In stark contrast, while Islamic fundamentalists take control in an all out war, once they have said control they start providing both security and services (at the price of [lack of] representation). They DO have a religious duty to care for the people under their control and so they do which is something no standard politician in the middle east would ever do.

A surge to try to control the situation is the only reasonable alternative with the hope that it will help to stabilize the country and then do the investment/infrastructure/etc in earnest, despite the not so small risk of failure.

In short, damn if you do, damn if you don't -but specially- damn if you keep doing what you have been doing.

*that was the ratio for the FARC compared to the Colombian Army during the worse years of the 90s. Nowadays the ratio is 1:12+ depending on who you ask, and the situation has improved significantly.

**it well may be that the next heavy lifting would have to be made there, there seems to be already Al Qaeda camps there.

[Aggie]

In stark contrast, while Islamic fundamentalists take control in an all out war, once they have said control they start providing both security and services (at the price of [lack of] representation). They DO have a religious duty to care for the people under their control and so they do which is something no standard politician in the middle east would ever do.

Heard some discourse on CBC today suggesting that the Taliban actually improved stability in the country during their rule despite obvious human rights issues and their horrible track record on women's rights, and that the warlords the West is  backing over there now are in many respects worse than the Taliban (albeit perhaps less likely to support Al Qaeda and therefore impact the West). To the average Afghani the West appears to be gouging out the less-bad regime and propping back up the worse alternative.  As long as war is making life worse than before this war started, Western actions look villainous - and there will be no shortage of new fighters.

I guess my argument is not necessarily against the need for military action, but for diversion of funds towards developing infrastructure to start winning some hearts and minds.  People need safety and stability above all, and if the regime the West is propping up cannot show it is capable of providing stability, there will be no chance of keeping control away from the Taliban.  In my view, by providing basic infrastructure and education in a portion of the country, there might be some motivation for the locals in adjoining areas to NOT sympathize with the insurgency.


*Zono, I'd be interested in how far the insurgency ratio gets skewed with suicide bombers thrown into the mix.  While many guerrillas are willing to die for the cause, I am not aware of too many other cases where that's the weapon of choice.

[Swatopluk]

I think I will take the role of the total cynic here again.
The Afghan problem is imo completely unsolvable after what Bush did.
There are also real doubts that the whole Afghan war was necessary in the first place since there have been quite credible claims that "The Taliban would not hand over bin Laden" was as blatant a lie as "Saddam would not let the inspectors in". From what I heard it was a matter of face saving on the Taliban side that Bush would not allow. The US government was totally willing to have business with the Taliban before (famous quote (paraphrased from memory): You can have a carpet of gold or be covered with a carpet of bombs). The Taliban (however loathsome one might consider them) were not expansionist and threatened noone outside their borders (i.e. they were the type of monsters the US loves to be on friendly terms with).
Bush wanted war (and so did at the time a significant part of the public). Simply getting the culprits handed over after some diplomatic kabuki and having them quicly tried (and executed) was not an option. But even a quick in quick out that would have been possible got bungled in the worst possible way, partially because of Rummy* and partially because it was the 'wrong' war from the administration's point of view.
If the US withdraws now the situation will be not that much different from the final stages of the Afghan civil war before the Taliban took over, just with even more people killed and livelihood destroyed (and the US nearly bankrupted). If the US stays, the killing and destroying and self-bankrupting will proceed.
I'd say drop Bush/Rummy/Chain-Eye into the tank with the bear and the shark (although those would likely die of food poisoning). Also Obama should take all GOP senators (and a few Dems + Holy Joe) and drop them in the Afghan mountains with signs in Pushtu saying "The prophet (war be upon him) had a carnal relationship with a male pig! Afghan men are cowards and their wifes and daughters are bad lays (we personally tested)!" (also graphic depictions of the same for those that cannot read).

*famous quote: "there are not enough targets in Afghanistan" (as opposed to Iraq). That's like the old joke about seeking the dropped pin under the street lights because the light is better there.

[Aggie]

I tend to agree with Swato....  (so maybe I'm more of a pragmatist than a bleeding-heart liberal by thinking some of the $ spent on military action is being thrown down a hole).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I tend to agree with Swato....  (so maybe I'm more of a pragmatist than a bleeding-heart liberal by thinking some of the $ spent on military action is being thrown down a hole).

It is a distinct possibility, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama. The thing is that without security it is impossible to make investment, if they indeed prove the secure+invest model there might be a betterment on the situation, and definitively a pure military solution will never work.

*Zono, I'd be interested in how far the insurgency ratio gets skewed with suicide bombers thrown into the mix.  While many guerrillas are willing to die for the cause, I am not aware of too many other cases where that's the weapon of choice.

The FARC have used "reluctant"* suicide bombers already.

*that is, the guy placing a car bomb is told that he has plenty of time to get out when in reality the timer/person holding the remote is set to blow the car immediately after placement, killing the driver.

[Aggie]

It is a distinct possibility, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama. The thing is that without security it is impossible to make investment, if they indeed prove the secure+invest model there might be a betterment on the situation, and definitively a pure military solution will never work.

*rumble*

But I'd like to hear some talk and see some follow-through on the buildup.  I know it is happening over there, especially WRT schools, but maybe it needs greater publicity.

[Swatopluk]

I fear that straight withdrawal was also not an option for (US domestic) political reasons. Of course the GOP attacks Obama no matter what (even if he sent a million more soldiers without any costs involved) but unfortunately the US public* seems still not mature enough to accept 'losing' (esp. not if the 'loser' is a Dem). It's the old psychological inability to cut your losses that also leads to economic desasters on a regular base. "We can't quit after all the money we have invested! We have to stay in the game until we at least get even!". Why do you think WW1 ended in 1918 instead of Xmas 1914 or 1916 at the latest?**

*i.e. a significant part of it
**from hindsight it should better have ended 1919 with the Western Allies crossing the Rhine. 1945 without the Soviets, so to speak.

[Aggie]

It's the old psychological inability to cut your losses that also leads to economic desasters on a regular base. "We can't quit after all the money we have invested! We have to stay in the game until we at least get even!".

Go play the market for a while, before you cast the first stone. 

_{and let me try to forget that I'm still hanging onto some SKF since $90 - I didn't set stops and was away when a 30% drop happened mumble mumble...}


I agree though WRT Afghanistan...  with this type of war one is likely to keep pushing on, because cutting losses actually increases them.  The situation will be worse after NATO pulls out than before they went in, in all likelihood.

[Swatopluk]

Unfortunately (?*) nobody has found the Reset button yet.

*I would not trust any politician with that, esp. not a GOPster.

[goat starer]

You can't send peace corps to be shot at.

oh i dunno... it can be quite funny!


but seriously... I dont think we should be sending anyone to DO the work. We should be paying afghans to do stuff themselves. If you build something you have a stake in protecting it. Its no different than working on council estates in Bradford... you can improve security by flooding the place with police and slapping behaviour orders and prison sentances on the kids... or you can engage them in things they have devised themselves. Give them a real sense of ownership and value and that is when people begin to police themselves.

Winning hearts and minds is so often seen as some kind of paternalistic activity when it should actually be abolut winning the argument. Unfortunately when you flood 30,000 troops into a place some of them do bad things... and mistakes are made... people dont remember the bridge the marines built they remember the wedding party that was accidentally blown up.

I just dont see how troops end this type of conflict. Northern Ireland is a case in point. In the end you have to convince not only your friends but your enemies that there is a better way to deal with difference.

I dont think you can pull out.... it would be bad manners... but i do think our governments need to stop taking advice from military leaders and start taking it from history. Military might has a place to prop up the people you support but that can only be whilst you throw most of your resource into education, infrastructure etc.

Its funny how we seem to have learned a lot of this stuff in community development and regeneration but the lessons dont seem to be transferring to overseas adventures.