Afghanistan: Ten Years Later

Relevant

I'm thinking it's easier for an American college grad to get a good job in A-stan than here in the US.

 

I used to think that Afghanistan was the right war at the right time. I am not so sure anymore.

I tend to think that if Afghanistan was "winnable" in any way it would have required the US *not* invading Iraq. The US lost a lot of global good will when that went down. With an increasingly global effort, there is a slim chance that something a little more lasting might have come out of Afghanistan.

In the end, Afghanistan is having the same impact on the West as it had on the Soviets.

 

You know how you win a war? You decide on the number of things you wanna break, the number of people you wanna kill, reach that goal and go the fuck home. COIN shit makes a helluva lot more sense in developed countries that will remain stable for more than 15 minutes after the First World Saviors leave. And I'm being pretty realistic here: by developed nation I mean they have doors on their houses instead of sheets on mud huts.

This hearts and minds bullshit did a fantastic job of occupying an entire decade with a generation of wasted dollars and wasted lives.

War​

You're Doing It Wrong​

America!

 

A: Go into the country harboring your enemy (A-stan)
B: Kill your enemy (Bin Laden)
C: Pack up and go home (incomplete)

The Taliban were not our problem before we tracked Bin Laden to Afghanistan. I'm not convinced that the majority of Afghans really care if they are in charge or not.

 

I beg to differ. Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was a, relatively speaking, enlightened place. After the Soviets left there was a political vacuum which was filled (eventually) by the Taliban. Where did the Taliban come from? The insurgents, who'd been armed and financially supported by the US, to take down the Soviets by proxy.

When the Taliban came into power, they were even worse than the Soviet regime that had left. Of course, there was little left of a government or military to combat them and what was there, was quickly squashed. The Taliban were orthodox in the worst manner. They banned women from public life, healthcare and education. Those who flouted their new law we subject to beatings, rape and public execution. In consolidating their power, they engaged in mass killings and public beatings.

So yes, I would suggest, the majority of Afghans really did care if they were in charge or not.

 

Should we end the mission in Afghanistan?

I think we should withdraw as gracefully as possible.

Has it made America safer? The world?

I doubt it. Only time will tell. It may have made us all less safe, but we can't know.

Has the mission failed? Will it?

I think we'd need to know what the objective was. I think it contained multiple objectives. Some have been accomplished, some not.

What will it take for it to mean a Taliban "victory"?

I'm not sure there will be a victor.

 

I saw the newspaper outside of the gym, "10 years" and I could not believe it. Wow, 10 already? I remember the first year thinking it would all be wrapped up soon and home by Christmas (a pun on what we fight all wars as).

 

Any "victory" in Afghanistan will require negotiations with the Taliban and some form of settlement that brings them, if possible, into the larger political process.

 

Since I am actually sitting here in Afghanistan right now as a US Infantry Officer reading this thread, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring....

1) Should we end the mission in Afghanistan? I don't know, for it to be a mission, there are some things necessary. A mission statement contains a few simple elements:

• Who is doing the mission (CHECK - The US is doing the mission with help from some partners)
• Where the mission is taking place (semi-CHECK - We are in Afghanistan, but we detoured to Iraq, and have yet to really address Pakistan)
• When the mission is taking place (again, semi-CHECK. TOT (when we arrive at the mission) was shortly after 9/11, but the duration has yet to be determined -- see "What"
• What the mission is all about (no CHECK. I am still not sure we have this crucial part of the mission. We are at the point where it is turn security and governance to the Afghan people, but there is still a lot of muddy water in our acutal desired outcome)
• Why is the mission necessary? (no CHECK. There have been several reasons given. First it was to get Bin Laden. Then it was to rout the Taliban. Then it was about Al-Qaeda. Now it's about securing the population. Ideally it may have been about all of those, but the Why and the What have definitely shifted quite a bit over the past decade.

2) Has it made America safer? Again, only time will actually give us the answer to this. If anything it has made America more paranoid and hopefully the by-product of that is increased security, but that is still yet to be fully realized.

3) Has the mission failed, will it? Well, again, I offer the mission discussion above. It is hard to fail at something that the desired endstate has not been solidified. I will say that at the tactical level our troops are doing a phenominal job and do absolutely deserve a ton of credit for everything that they are doing. Also all credit is due to those outside the military for not losing faith with our Soldiers and continuing to support us while the view on the war as a whole is not what it was on 9/12.

4) What will it take for a Taliban "victory"? Well, that depends on how ambitious their leaders are. If they define victory as us leaving, then, well that will be achieved in due time regardless of any outcome. If they define victory as having the country of Afghanistan for themselves as it was on 9/10, they have lost that one already. There will always be too much pressure and visibility on Afghanistan now (as opposed to before 9/11) for the Taliban to go unchecked. Also remember that the Taliban really has never had a unified command structure, which is why they were unable to fully negotiate an end to this war back in late 2001/early 2002. Their inability to unite and find common ground is by far one of their largest "political" weaknesses.

The bottom line is that we as America stepped into a conflict that was necessary for our security at the time. Due to shifting priorities and unclear mission, we have been unable to define what success really looks like. I think one of the major problems is that many Americans really don't see the Afghan War as being anything more than a distraction from much more important things like Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox or Dancing With The Stars. For us to achieve a true unquestionable victory we would have to have a mobilized population (like WW2) and clear goals and guidance from our civilian leadership. As long as US (and our coalition partners) Servicemen and women are in harms way and dying without the nation and its industry squarely behind them the whole thing is one big quagmire.

Just my $.02

 

Hi no128s.

I would agree with that assessment 100%. Actually, I think it is very similar (but more detailed) than the answer I gave earlier.

I'd add that I believe that the nature of the task given to the military has changed somewhat in recent years. We are now looking at different kinds of conflicts and different kinds of tasks, requiring different types of skills. I think this is well understood and a lot of effort has gonme into preparing the men and women who carry out the work and in ensuring that highly mobile forces can be deployed quickly.

What would be REALLY helpful, however, is if the politicians who mobilise those forces would pause for long enough to determine clear objectives before mobilisation and - in particular - would consider the exit strategy (or strategies, under different scenarios). While most plans become outdated as soon as bullets start flying, failure to even consider this stuff is a major disservice to the people being deployed.

Afghanistan is a case in point, as was Iraq. It was perfectly clear that "taking" Iraq could be achieved quickly and easily. It was also perfectly clear that the real problem would be what happens then. I know it was perfectly clear because I, and many others, pointed it out prior to deployment. Why it came as a "surprise" to some of the politicians, I have no idea.

A clear mission is not a big thing to ask. Once that has been achieved, let's either exit or get another clear mission.

 

...

Whoops. Tilted Politics trap.

 

Yo, no128s. Nice to see someone else who's currently in Afghanistan.

And yeah, very happy to see pressure being thrown on Pakistan like WW2 sandbags. Finally.