Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
A Clarification
Readers, there appears to have been some confusion as to whether or not I support the request made by Gen. McChrystal for more troops in Afghanistan. I do. But in addition to clarifying matters, allow me to put my opinions into context.
Below you will find two documents. The first is the president's published policy and strategic objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The second is Gen. McChrystal's initial assessment of the war in Afghanistan. Based on these two documents and assuming the former is still valid, I believe, along with Adm. Mullen and Gens. Petraeus and McChrystal, that a properly-resourced counterinsurgency strategy is the best strategy for realizing the president's policy objectives. Nothing -- including the disastrous Afghan presidential election -- changes my opinion here regarding how to best operationalize the president's policy and strategic objectives. If, on the other hand, the president changes his own assessment or revisits his policy, I might in turn change my opinion on how to best operationalize his policy and those strategic objectives. While the Afghan presidential elections do not, I believe, change the way in which we might operationalize a strategy, it does -- along with the latter document -- offer cause for rethinking the assumptions that went into the initial policy review. Make sense? Good.
Can we have a link to the
Can we have a link to the actual ISAF ROE the troopies get? Ya know, the GTA card or whatever...
Seriously,were there really
Seriously,were there really people who didn't know where you stood on this issue?
Reconcilable insurgents?
Reconcilable insurgents? Describe one to me. We called em Kit Carson scouts. Over 90% of them when they were recovered and healthy................ disappeared in contact.
Giving the UN the control
Giving the UN the control over Pakistan and Afghanistan? Is that what we are fighting for?
"Seriously,were there really
"Seriously,were there really people who didn't know where you stood on this issue?"
that really is the most amazing thing.
Worry not, our excellent
Worry not, our excellent (UK) MOD/ Royal Air Force have the answer to the Afghan question- the new Dual Mode Brimstone guided missile. It 'takes out the Taliban while leaving civilians unharmed'. At last a poltically correct missile. You wont find a better piece of MOD spin than this and you can watch the missile fired in combat for the first time:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1216149/VIDEO-New-precisi...
Good to see the arms firms can still make a buck in this new age of COIN.
AM: although some would say
AM: although some would say it's premature to talk about this, under what circumstances would you change you mind about the feasibility of COIN within Afghanistan, leading (I assume) to have to settle for something similar to the Somalia choice of limited CT (although I recognize the differences in the two situations)? When you say you feel a fully resourced COIN strategy, is that a 40-45k troop (do we even have that many troops available?) increase or do you feel that the 20-30k option is feasible?
And on a side note I haven't seen you comment very much lately on Iraq and the aftermath of the surge there? I'm a SPC in Army Reserves about to deploy to Iraq first of the year, just curious what you think of how things are going now...
abu Muqawama: Can you
abu Muqawama: Can you explain simply what strategy you advocate? This has been asked on multiple occasions lately, and not answered. If I missed it, please forgive me.
The US does not have a vital
The US does not have a vital security interest in Afghanistan. It's unlikely to have even an important interest. Since Obama said he thinks Afghanistan is vital to the US then cost apparently is no option. I haven't heard McChrystal even mention the expense of this so I presume he and his boss don't care.
Obama has produced a deluded policy which has been jumped on by the surgettes to launch an expanded PC Coin campaign even though one primary requirement- a legitimate host government is missing and the other- US public support- is quickly waning.
Realistically, would
Realistically, would anything make you change your mind about either the strategy or how to operationalize it?
I find this sort of post
I find this sort of post fascinating, in perhaps the same way I might have found a monastic debate on whether Jesus owned the clothes he wore -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose.
There are just so many nuances, that I doubt you could ever pin Exum down on anything:
"assuming the former is still valid"
"a properly-resourced counterinsurgency strategy"
"I might in turn change my opinion"
"offer cause for rethinking the assumptions"
What you have here, friends, is a perfect Washington, DC argument. It sounds thoughtful, but really what it provides is a "get out of jail free" card to weather any change in the policy environment. There is literally nothing here that could ever be held against Exum in the future. Regardless of whether Afghanistan intervention turns into a roaring success or a raging fiasco, Exum will come out smelling like a rose. Writing this sort of stuff takes genuine talent.
Don't you think you tied the
Don't you think you tied the president's "strategy hands" by contributing to a policy report with "operational recommendations?"
Its amazing how childish
Its amazing how childish this debate gets very fast. Now Exum is a courtier, formulating perfect Washington DC answers when he openly states his support for the idea he has helped craft.
To turn it around: Ive been asking the COINtras for half a year now to show me some sort of blueprint for a light footprint "enemy-centric" CT focused plan that doesnt involve razing villages and torturing random individuals based on dodgy intel. I have yet to see it emnerge. Mr. Finel, since you are a professor, dont you find it embarassiong to discuss from a wholy negative pov, without any ideas to provide an alternative?
To me, this is more and more becoming a partisan debate where the Right is trying to portray Obama as a "buddyfucker" and less and less about Afghanistan.
@ fnord, don't you find it
@ fnord, don't you find it irritating that the ROE and the ROW are not being discussed on the previous blog? It has nothin to do with Obama suckin ass to the Islamic leaders of the terrorists, Yet it is still not addressed.
I guess it is only addressed if it is in favor of the Radical islamic party here.
Comment by Disgusted on
Comment by Disgusted on September 29, 2009 - 12:10am
ROE, ROW Lets discuss those. Or is it a matter of you are unable to? I set out criteria that doesn't force anyone to break oaths but gives us a beginning to the debate. So did ELF ............................... I suspect that you all can't or won't because this is really a propaganda site rather than an honest debate site.
Tell me I am wrong. I sure want to be. I doubt that I am though.
Disgusted: I tried
Disgusted: I tried commenting on ROE vs ROW in the previous post just now. Suggestion: If you want to be taken seriously, tone down on the implications that those who disagree with you are "Radical Islamist" fans. SOme of us prefer to be precise about wich enemy we are fighting, noting that there is a long way from AQ to the Muslim Brotherhood. The one poses a direct threat to the west, and an ideology of war and terror. The other seeks to bring about a muslim rule, yet is continually evolving. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again: What we are seeing now is the birthpangs of secular islam, their coming into the modern age at all levels and not just the top. The radical movement is a reaction to this, not a end-result. Solve the Gaza sore and give it two generations, and I think a lot of issues will resolve themselves.
disgusted i just spent 35
disgusted i just spent 35 minutes writing you a beautifully honed response that Jesus himself would have approved of, by my computer blue screened and i need a lie down
I am very glad this debate
I am very glad this debate on Afghanistan is finally happening in the U.S. However, I feel we are missing a critical point in the debate - the Afghan Government. I am absolutely not in favor of more troops if no one is going to hold the Government to account. Sending thousands of troops into villages to "protect the population from the insurgent", and yet leave them at the mercy of the local corrupt strongman who happens to be the police chief and the 'community defense' force that is a militia run by a narcotics kingpin is not protecting the population.
The mess of the elections means we are sending troops in support of a government viewed by many to be illegitimate, a government who is at the moment seeing nothing but potential dollars as they try to position themselves to benefit from the increased US interest. It must be very clear from Karzai down to the district level officials that should the government not follow through on its promises to reform and to deliver, we will no longer send men and women to die for them. Going backwards to the days of Fahim, Dostum, etc. is not why we are there. We have been so busy coddling officials and favorites we missed that we have been played over and over. It must be clear, and we must not hesitate to follow through, that if the Afghan Government is determined to fail we will not go down with them.
PS: Old Blue, from the
PS: Old Blue, from the ground over there: http://afghanquest.com/?p=377
You need to change that link, CNAS tech-gnome.
Bernard, Of course it's a
Bernard,
Of course it's a Washington DC answer. After all, Exum is an aspiring DC policy wonk, something which doesn't require say, intelectual honesty of the first degree, or an overwhelming mastery of his subject field, but rather an ability to read the political winds and spout out whatever theory is in vogue at the moment, as well as the application of a healthy dose of ass kissing, ala Michael O'Hanlon style.
"Germany to Hell," Al-Qa'ida
"Germany to Hell," Al-Qa'ida Central is Coming...
Oh, man, I love a radical
Oh, man, I love a radical Islamic party. The music, the pastries, the dancing with Lebanese girls--there's nothin' better.
That's what you're talking about, right, Disgusted? Because surely you wouldn't be asinine enough to suggest that anyone whose approach to Afghanistan differs from yours is simply working for the enemy. I mean, that would be stupid.
Let me get this right again.
Let me get this right again. If you change the policy assumptions, does failure become success? And pray tell, do you sack this general too?
Let us be honest with
Let us be honest with ourselves.
If Al Qaeda were wiped from the face of the earth today, and if it otherwise ceased to exist and if it could be guaranteed that it would never return; we would not be leaving Afghanistan because of this.
We would stay on in Afghanistan anyway, to defeat the Taliban and to otherwise transform Afghanistan (girls schools, democracy, market economy, state-building, wide-spread building projects and development efforts).
We are, after all, on a modernizing, civilizing and building/development mission these days.
This (modernizing, civilizing, building and development) best identifies and describes the true purpose for our continuing presence in Afghanistan, and for our engagement and intervention elsewhere in the less developed world today.
Thus, our overall purpose transcends Al Qaeda. It has more to do, instead, with our determination to change the world so that it will be more like us and, therefore, more compatible with our overall wants and needs.
This reson de etat of the United States does not begin, nor does it end, with Al Qaeda.
@ disgusted: 1. Some of us
@ disgusted:
1. Some of us are not in the military and never have been, like, well, me. I don't know about ROE and wouldn't be qualified to discuss them. A cynic might say that anyone in the military could potentially make a fool of a gullible civilian. But I am not a cynic or anything.
2. Elf can tell you, whenever Elf is around: I'm closer to E politically than many who post on this board. I am not, to put it mildly, a fan of the President, although for the sake of our country I hope I'm wrong about him. His administration's rapid and intrusive expansion of government will put much negative pressure on the future of this country, imo. I don't think, personally, he understands wealth creation. None of the Chicago crew do: they view business as, and I'm stealing this line, 'an ATM machine' to be milked. There is a reason crony capitalism has such a sway in Chitown and Illinois: It's literally the only way to do business, in many instances.
3. I steer away from this stuff, lately, out of respect for the blog host because I think free speech matters and I appreciate anyone who would put up with a comments section like this. I am not a DC wonk and don't understand the internal politics that seem to spill into the comments section from time to time. I try and consider each argument, separately.
4. You will make me regret responding to you, won't you?
Oh, and in conclusion, I am completely confused by the President's Afghanistan strategy or strategies, and I suspect he is, too. This is complete supposition, but I think he doesn't know what to do and will drag out the decision making, because that has been his pattern during his brief career.
Oh, and what is this 'there
Oh, and what is this 'there is finally a debate on Afghanistan," stuff. There was a debate during the almost 2 year Presidential election cycle last time and the conclusions sure seemed different, then, when it was the Good War. What changed in the space of the last month? Polls? Chances of success, however that is currently being defined? And, I'm not talking about Karzai.....
Arrgh, in my first comment,
Arrgh, in my first comment, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about the military, ROE engagement and potentially making a 'fool of a gullible civilian.' I just meant that in comment spaces like this it would be easy to sound like you know what you are talking about to someome who doesn't know the first thing about ROE. Sorry if that came out kind of harsh. Okay, I'm done now.
Madhu: Theres a difference
Madhu: Theres a difference between election sloganeering and informed discussion on practical measures. Just as its easier to campaign on healthreform than to actually tackle that beast to the ground in the real world. In that respect there is *finally* a Afghanistan debate going on, 6 years+ too late.
A wee bit off topic, but how
A wee bit off topic, but how many hearts and minds do you think this wins on the arab blogs?
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/09/26/kollar-kotelly-orders-al-r...
Fnord: (A) I don't need to
Fnord:
(A) I don't need to provide a light footprint COIN approach, because I don't support a COIN approach at all. I would suggest our role vis-a-vis the insurgency be in Afghanistan be purely one of training, generous military and financial assistance, sharing of information, and possibly provide some air support if we can arrange a reasonable basing and ROE arrangement. I don't want to see American troops providing security or killing Taliban fighters or building schools or whatever else. It just can't be our job to fix Afghanistan, though I am happy to provide assistance to a government that I have reason to hope might be reasonably friendly to American interests.
(B) I have suggested using an off-shore CT approach against AQAM. My reasons for doing so were laid out in a SWJ essay on military occupation and CT as well as various writing about both Afghanistan in general and safe havens in particular. It is simply not true that I -- at least -- have not provided a blueprint about my views on Afghanistan. Now, if General McChrystal wants to invite me to Afghanistan, provide me with some funding for staff support and researchers, and give me a mandate to write up an alternative assessment, I will gladly, eagerly do so.
(C) As far as getting childish... really... am I am the only whole considers it absurd that a post titles "a clarification" is so strewn with qualifications and caveats that it is impossible to hold the author accountable for any of his recommendations? Like Biddle's recent writings -- and it is clear Exum and Biddle are influencing each other on this score -- this is obfuscation passing for careful consideration.
Finel: Fair rebuttal, any
Finel: Fair rebuttal, any links to your off-shore solution to Af/Pak?
It's Still Not Too Late To
It's Still Not Too Late To Greet Us As Liberators - The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/its_still_not_too_late_to_greet?...
Would increased
Would increased effectiveness in countering Al Queda without increasing the US presence in Afghanistan make you change your mind, AM?
Inside Sources Have Reduced al-Qaeda Effectiveness, U.S. Officials Say (Wash Post)
Those within the administration who have suggested limiting large-scale U.S. ground combat in Afghanistan, including Vice President Biden, have pointed to an improved counter-terrorism effort as evidence that Obama's principal objective -- destroying al-Qaeda -- can be achieved without an expanded troop presence.
Pentagon Report Concludes
Pentagon Report Concludes Too Many Soldiers Have Same Nickname - The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/pentagon_report_concludes?ut...
Let’s find a new way of
Let’s find a new way of success and its most appropriate time to break your old habits and admit that using tables for layout is outmoded and lazy. It's time to move on to CSS layouts, I have admitted this fact and going to focus on it after my IT related exams such as 642-973 DCNIS1 and the 642-691 BGP+ MPLS at the last but not least 642-972 DCASD. Lets go jump into the stream of wisdom like my 642-611 MPLS.
Add your comment