Jump to bottom

37 comments
1 Randall Gross  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:26:38am

Yon is correct we cannot afford to lose this because there is too much at stake. This is the first ground we took from AQ and the Taliban, and we can leave any form of gov't in our wake that's stable and able to keep them out. It's preferrable to leave a democratic republic behind but that might be out of reach. That doesn't matter as long as what we leave in place is strong enough to resist the Taliban and co.

2 debutaunt  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:26:42am

Heroism comes in many forms.

3 [deleted]  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:27:27am
4 itellu3times  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:27:28am

What will it take to win, and what will that win look like?

Sounds like major nation-building.

Are we willing to be cultural imperialists?

Cuz it doesn't sound like the issue are military at all, and not even economic, not really.

5 avanti  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:29:41am

Fox is moving toward criticism of our involvement in the Afgan war this week.

6 MandyManners  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:30:38am

Will someone tell George Will to shut the fuck up?

7 [deleted]  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:32:09am
8 yma o hyd  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:35:21am

I'm hearing more and more voices argueing that 'we must pull out of A'stan now'.

Here is a rather thoughtful take on why we Brits must not, from a former Tory minister:

'The danger to Britain comes from there [Pakistan]. Luckily Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, has a functioning government and a competent army.

Recently, that Pakistani administration has shown real commitment to fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda inside its borders. Its forces are more likely to win hearts and minds than foreign troops in Afghanistan.

The Pakistani government would surely end its onslaught on Al-Qaeda if we gave up in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis cannot be expected to fight to make us safer if we throw in the towel. Nor can Pakistan win unless we make it difficult for Al-Qaeda across the frontier. To pick up Joyce’s challenge, that is the link between the death toll among British forces and saving lives in Britain. '
(My emphasis)


The whole comment is worth reading:
[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

9 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:35:35am

Well with cretinous morons like George Will calling for labeling the war "Obama's war" and then insisting we lose said war, I expect Yon's call to land on some deaf ears who are now placing strategery before national interests.

Sad how so many can make sonorous calls for sacrifice and liberty for others suddenly abandon their "ideals" when it provides an opportunity to shove a sharp stick into their opposition's eye.

Fact remains that the Middle East needs to modernize into a rational society or we will have the Jihad bringing a WMD attack to our shores at some point in the future. It is an inevitability if we don't create and sustain pockets of safety and pluralism and keep the pressure on the retrograde morons who make up the Jihad.

That means fighting this war for as long as it takes regardless of what ass hole occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

10 Desert Dog  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:38:24am

re: #1 Thanos

Yon is correct we cannot afford to lose this because there is too much at stake. This is the first ground we took from AQ and the Taliban, and we can leave any form of gov't in our wake that's stable and able to keep them out. It's preferrable to leave a democratic republic behind but that might be out of reach. That doesn't matter as long as what we leave in place is strong enough to resist the Taliban and co.

It is even worse than the situation in Iraq. There are people there willing to fill in the power vacuum when we pull back. I cannot see that in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban is the only organized and powerful enough group to step up and take it if we leave. Can we really expect to see a strong national government in a place where tribalism is still stronger than nationalism?

You are dialed into this area, what do you think the USA should do to foster more good will from the local chieftains. That is the real power there, isn't it?

11 opnion  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:40:02am

re: #5 avanti

Fox is moving toward criticism of our involvement in the Afgan war this week.

Good moring Avanti. What do you base that on?
ABC had a four person panel on this morning & three called for withdrawl.

12 opnion  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:45:21am

Looks to me that the only way to get anything that looks like victory is putting overwhelmig numbers in & drive the Taliban & al Queda to the Pakistan border. They should meet a deadly blocking force there to eliminate them.
We can't stay ststus quo & watch our troops killed.
Pakistan should not be an enemy haven like Cambodia during the Viet Nam War. That did not go well.

13 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:46:17am

And, by the way, it should be pointed out quite clearly that the cynical political calculus that George Will exemplifies is not exclusively practiced on the right.

The Democrats have among them many who want Obama to quit Afghanistan now while the failure can still be blamed on George W. Bush.

There are very few people in Washington who deserve anything but our collective contempt.

14 avanti  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:47:30am

re: #11 opnion

Good moring Avanti. What do you base that on?
ABC had a four person panel on this morning & three called for withdrawl.

Watching them this AM questioning a possible upcoming call for a troop increase. I agree that many on the left are just as ill advised and critical of Obama, but if the far left is joined by the normally hawkish right, the effort is doomed.

15 quickjustice  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:49:11am

Paraphrasing Lauren Bacall, I've won, and I've lost. Winning is better.

I understand that when we undertake such campaigns and commit our military, we must fight to win. Conventional military forces don't always do well in counter-insurgency fighting, however. It took just 200 Special Forces soldiers supported by air power to overthrow the Taliban government. That was a campaign quite different from this one. In addition to the difficulties of pinning down a tribal, nomadic Pashtun culture that melts across poorly guarded national borders, we also have the treacherous Pakistani ISI to deal with.

At Yon's "in the trenches" level, I have no doubt that the U.S. and British combat troops are superb. What I wonder is whether the Commander-in-Chief and his generals have a coherent strategy for victory. Or is this just another exercise in nation-building? The British had a very bad experience in Afghanistan back in the 1830s. Will this be a repeat?

16 Tamron  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:50:22am

re: #3 taxfreekiller

So, if we can not lose, what will the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John F. Kerry do, America winning a war would not be good for his tack record nor his Democrat party anti war base.

He and some other Democrat leaders just do not seem to fit the America wins wars profile some report.

Will we hold on to 2010 and then what?


Kerry seems obsessed with snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He should pull a Pelosi and go have his own private negotiations with Al Qaida, if he really wants to get back in the news like the good old days.

Maybe Kerry can locate the Afghanistan branch of these Iraqi terrorists:

Youtube Video
17 lincolntf  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:52:41am

re: #16 Tamron

Is there an Appeasement Czar yet?
Kerry would be a perfect fit.

18 [deleted]  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:52:41am
19 Randall Gross  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:54:39am

re: #6 MandyManners

Will someone tell George Will to shut the fuck up?

It was inevitable that many on the right would move to this stance & post election I predicted it. They see political chance to make Afghanistan Obama's quaqmire. The paleocons who always were Isolationist will move the fastest, and George Will's been sipping tea in their camp for a while.

20 opnion  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:55:25am

re: #14 avanti

Watching them this AM questioning a possible upcoming call for a troop increase. I agree that many on the left are just as ill advised and critical of Obama, but if the far left is joined by the normally hawkish right, the effort is doomed.

I Saw FNC this morning & did not get that, but who knows?

21 debutaunt  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 9:57:59am

re: #20 opnion

I Saw FNC this morning & did not get that, but who knows?

Perception and reality continue to be different.

22 sagehen  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 10:15:32am

re: #10 Desert Dog

Can we really expect to see a strong national government in a place where tribalism is still stronger than nationalism?

You are dialed into this area, what do you think the USA should do to foster more good will from the local chieftains. That is the real power there, isn't it?

I don't claim to be any kind of Afghanistan expert, but isn't a heavily tribalized place ideal ground for a federalist system? They should be able to take to the idea fairly easily, without a lot of cultural dislocation.

Let the central government be responsible for just enough useful things that the states/districts/whatever they're called don't want to kick them in the teeth. Starting with... roads would be good. And maybe electricity. And telephones.

23 Diego  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 10:18:19am

re: #9 karmic_inquisitor

Sad how so many can make sonorous calls for sacrifice and liberty for others suddenly abandon their "ideals" when it provides an opportunity to shove a sharp stick into their opposition's eye.

Indeed. It's called 'hypocrisy'.

24 pjh  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 10:26:07am

Say what you want about Will, he has a very important ally in Gen. Krulak, retired Commandant of the Marine Corps. Krulak says he is in "total agreement" with Will. I'm not, but that doesn't really matter. Folks like Krulak and Will can give the Obama Administration all the cover it needs to bug out.

25 Tamron  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 10:32:39am

Popular Science article on the Reaper ("Grim Reaper") drone.

Their video shows how effectively a pilot sitting at a desk in Nevada, can take out a small group of terrorists in Afghanistan.

Here's a good amateur video of various aspects of a Reaper Deployment:

Youtube Video
26 pjh  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 10:32:40am

re: #22 sagehen

I think you are spot on. Work within the tribal system, not against it.

27 Vanderleun  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 10:56:31am

I've watched war reporting for decades. Nobody on the face of the earth currently does it better than Yon.

28 borgcube  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 11:30:35am

Like Iraq, the actual armed conflict and defeating whatever resembles a enemy was over quickly. It has morphed into a (and I know I'll get grief for this) gigantic baby sitting mission but the babies are a bunch of 7th century primitives.

There's no "winning" here, but that's ok, as anyone who is honest with himself knew that going in. The purpose and goal was to protect the interests and safety of the American people, and our military has performed that function very well. The best we can do is keep the primitives perpetually in that state. Primitive. Impotent. Harmless.

To keep dreaming about a somewhat modern democratic Afghan nation is silly, especially anytime soon. Ain't gonna happen. If Michael Yon is telling us that it will take one hundred years before a reasonable person would even dare to call Afghanistan a "developing nation", I think that just about sums it up. And I think he's probably being a bit too optimistic at that.

29 Flyers1974  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 11:50:14am

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Here is an article by the NYT's Thomas Friedman.

If I recall correctly, Friedman has always been in favor of the war in Afghanistan. His take on the facts seem to be very much in accord with Yon's. However, Friedman opines that while nation-building may still be worth it in Afghanistan, issues regarding cost, time, the compelling U.S. interests, and who will oversee this. must be debated again. His rationale is based on his belief that the American public is losing interest and that the public must be behind the war for it to be successful.

30 crosspatch  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 12:27:33pm

It seems to me that we are devoting a lot of resources in attempting to diminish the Taliban "center of gravity" but not devoting enough resources to creating an alternative "center of gravity" to attract the population to something different from the Taliban. We should be building more in the peaceful areas. We should be using this time in the areas where the Taliban have little influence to build an energy, transportation, and communications infrastructure that provides a better life for people and that the people in the more marginal areas might want to be a part of.

This notion that if we simply smash the Taliban, some unicorn will appear and poop a better way is nuts. What exactly are we doing to provide these people with an alternative?

31 yael  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 12:44:33pm

Link
Some comments from today’s Washington Post article by a Pakistani journalist, Ahmed Rashid, who has a long-term perspective on this situation.

The keys (are) investment in agriculture, because that is where jobs lie; rebuilding the roads that used to link the major cities and border towns, so the economy could take off; and investing in an Afghan army and police force.


He notes the lack of understanding of the problems on the ground, which agrees with Michael Yon’s report. According to this article, too many journalists, pundits and experts lack sufficient –or indeed any- actual experience of the country. No paper documentation can replace actually seeing what is happening, especially if you are trying to shape workable policies.

32 lostlakehiker  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 12:57:51pm

The good news is that Gates is getting the straight poop from Yon. When the people who call the shots listen to the people who know the score, good decisions are at least possible. When the guys calling the shots are top talent with energy, wisdom, and experience, good decisions are likely.

That's what we have here. It's something to take heart in.

33 Tom on the Rez  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 2:21:58pm

I have to concur with what Sagehen says. Create a road system and work with the tribes.

34 crosspatch  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 2:56:01pm

re: #33 Tom on the Rez

... Create a road system and work with the tribes.

First you need to make cement. To make cement you need energy. So first you need energy. Over 60% of all energy consumed in Afghanistan is from the burning of wood. Areas outside of the provincial capitals have no electricity, no water treatment, no refigeration, nothing. They look like US towns in the far mountain west in the mid 19th century.

As far as I know there is not a single oil refinery in Afghanistan. So before you build roads you need to build an infrastructure that supports what is needed to produce what you need to build roads. You need energy, you need cement, you need water, you need a refinery that can produce some asphalt and fuel for the machines that will be making the roads. And you need a population that can read and write and can follow written instructions and read engineering diagrams so they can maintain that infrastructure.

So before you can do anything more than launch bullets, you need to get energy and cement production up and educate people on what to do with it and how to maintain it. That, boys and girls, will take at least a generation.

35 CTUCandyVendor  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 3:39:03pm

I think everyone should stop painting themselves into a corner with their "withdraw equals defeat" comments. We won the war. We should pat ourselves on the back, and push any Vietnam-based feelings of inadequacy out the door. If someone wants to say we have not won the war, please tell me what your metric is for claiming victory, that can be measured in some historically accepted way.

In the eyes of the world, we have had two missions:
In Iraq, the mission was creating a democracy from a totalitarian state.
In Afghanistan, the mission was hitting the Taliban hard, to show them what may happen when they wake a giant.

Deciding what we as a country want to do in Afghanistan post-victory, is an important decision, but it is time to make that decision with eyes wide open, and not driven by fears of being looked at as "cut-and-run" losers. Our troops went in, they kicked ass, and won. Period.

The last few posters here seem to recognize that how to move forward requires outlining measurable challenges around a set of defined goals. You are either for nation building, or you are not, but to sit in the middle and not make this analysis, while soldiers die, is wrong. We should claim our rightful and hard earned victory right now, and take that emotional barrier to formulating productive next steps off the table. Are you for nation building, and sticking around for 3 or 4 decades to generate an infrastructure, an economy, and an educated populace, while crushing down the resistance from the local power players trying to keep the poppy business alive and well? You should make this decision. Some will say it is worth it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the discussion should not be about which politicians benefit or how we are or not 'quitters', when we have never defined the goal.

A goal of " we stay and fight the remnants, for as long as it takes, until there is no one left to fight" is fine, but you are asking entire generations of young men and women to effectively never come home, as pockets of resistance will always pool in the Afghanistan cracks, fed by the springs of the hate factories just across the border in Pakistan, and from Saudi.

I say "we won". Now the decision is not about winning or losing.

36 crosspatch  Sun, Sep 6, 2009 4:51:29pm

re: #35 CTUCandyVendor

I agree but I also think we have already been overtaken by events. When the current administration in Afghanistan was sword in would have been the time to declare "Mission Accomplished" and then decide on what Phase II would be or if there would even be one. Instead, we have let Phase I continue indefinitely and are now being pushed back as the Taliban regroup. Now we can't go back in time and change the past so what is the best way forward?

What comes obviously to mind is that we set some reasonably (though not necessarily easily) attainable goal, attain that goal, declare victory and then declare the beginning of Phase II. It is clear we can not rely on much but words and token participation from the UN and a good portion of NATO so we are going to need to do much of this ourself. We should identify several (at least three) major provincial capitals, connect them to Kabul with good road and then connect the three together. There should be a national broadcast service that is beamed across the entire country and people should be provided with reception equipment (radios/televisions) at low or no cost. A rural electrification program should be done in those areas. Then you expand on that. From each provincial capital, you monitor traffic on the roads radiating from it, and you build good road on the top 3 to 5 routes radiating from the provincial capital, probably to the primary cities of the more populus districts within the province. Then you connect these towns together directly with good road.

But all of that requires energy and the distribution thereof. Thinking back on the region of the US where I grew up, most of the roads were dirt long after the rural area was electrified. There was one primary road in the county that was concrete. The rest were either macadam "9-foot" roads (one side paved, other side dirt) or all dirt. You don't need paved road for local communications between farms and the town but you do need fast, all weather paved roads for transit of freight and goods between major market centers.

Maybe connecting Kabul with Charikar, Meydan Shahr, Mahmud-i-Raqi, and Mihtarlam might be a good start and then working out from there. I don't have enough knowledge on the ground there to know for sure, but we need to do SOMETHING like that.

But we have let the current situation linger too long and are now reacting to events rather than taking the initiative and controlling events. Now is the time to be bold.

37 Sacred Plants  Mon, Sep 7, 2009 2:05:51am

Certainly the time has come to name the toxic assets in the United Nations campaign surrounding the American effort.

Are there any goals in this war which are entirely undesirable?

Are there any allies in this war who have tricked their voters into it?

Are there any weapons in this war which would rather be plundered for civilian purposes than used against the West?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1