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.
There is something to be said for...
September 30, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 4:55pm | 10 Comments
“I simply decided I could not be complicit in the cover up of fraud,” he said, speaking by telephone from Vermont.
So can we all go home now?
So can we all go home now?
A quick comment about
A quick comment about Afghanistan (and sorry for double post but applies better here):
Looking at the debate between engaging in a CT or COIN strategy in Afghanistan, it seems to me the case for COIN is the better argument and has the largest chance of success in Afghanistan. However,
One question that keeps coming to my mind though is do we actually have the resources (troops and money) to fully carry it out. The estimates seem to be at least 30k more troops, and more likely 40k, to adequately resource a successful COIN strategy. Right now we’re spending $6-$7B/month = ~$70-$80B/year and we’re already at a limit of available troops, straining our military and drastically hurting our deterrence capability. If we engage to a fully resourced COIN strategy (even if a limited Ink-Spot campaign), then we’re talking $10-$12B/month for the next 2 years before we can transition to a more limited CT/training/logistical/& intel support role, estimating back down to a current cost $6-$7B/month for another 2-3 years. After that, then another 5 years of same but hopefully much less with the Afghans taking over most of their fighting, security and logistics, estimating ~$1-$2B/month. All that gives us a total cost = ~$500-$600 Billion (on top of what we have already paid). I have purposefully not mentioned actual human cost, but I would make a guess of over the next 10 years another 1000 deaths and maybe 5000-8000 casualties (the majority within the first 3 years though), and assuming we’re successful in our efforts.
I think that is a fairly realistic assessment (maybe even slightly optimistic), and I would have to ask if that’s a figure that the American people will support? (and if they wouldn’t then I would argue there’s no way a COIN strategy could be successful, no matter what the Afghans do). Right now our deficit is ~60% of GDP and it’s estimated to go up to ~80% of GDP in the next 10 years (historically manageable but still very high). If we commit to a fully engaged COIN strategy though, that number would go up much higher (or taxes would have to go up). We’re also assuming no other major conflicts come about and so use most of our ground troops to insure any deterrence capability (i.e. Iran or NK).
Most analysis I’ve read on Iran says that diplomacy and/or sanctions have a slim chance of being successful, leaving a better than 50% chance that Israel will strike. However all analysis I’ve read says that Iran is pretty prepared for any limited air strikes (even if it does hurt them some) and is willing to escalate/retaliate against us and others in the region even if it’s Israel (largely because there is little deterrence to stop them from doing so). Those that would argue President Obama wouldn’t choose to go to war with Iran I think would be ignoring the potential lack of choice due to Israel’s stated commitments to not under any circumstances allow a nuclear armed Iran and the likely hood of the US being dragged into that potential conflict. Although that’s a different issue I think it’s important to mention in deciding if we have the capability in committing fully to Afghanistan.
Personally I should state I don’t really know and am not arguing yet one way or another, just posing questions about it.
CN. Don't forget paying and
CN. Don't forget paying and equipping the ANSF for ever, interest on the borrowed cash, long term health care and pensions for the troops, 1.2 civilians for each soldier deployed and the cost of replacing and repairing equipment. My guess is your figures should be doubled for the actual cost and then tripled for the interest and that's if everything goes according to McChrystal's plan. Roughly $864 billion per year and $ 4 Trillion before the next Afghan presidential election.
And all this is prevent poor quality rifle squad training in gravel pits a few miles from very similar gravel pots in Pakistan.
Having decided Afghanistan is a vital security interest (I don't) the COIN argument is only "stronger" if you believe that Karzai and crew will morph into a honest and efficient government and educated and honest Afghans will decide providing security outside of their home province by serving in the ANSF is a sensible choice. I have seen no evidence of either so the PC COIN plan doesn't make sense.
Best case I heard for the
Best case I heard for the President to fly to Denmark and pitch for Chicago Olympics. AfPak is like managing the Cubs.
Government work is no place
Government work is no place for an honest man.
“I cannot support a
“I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuses and liars.”
-Colonel Ted Westhusing
Westhusing was an amazing
Westhusing was an amazing man.
M Shannon - I completely
M Shannon - I completely agree, the COIN option is only better if "if you believe that Karzai and crew will morph into a honest and efficient government and educated and honest Afghans will decide providing security outside of their home province by serving in the ANSF is a sensible choice. "
That seems to be forgotten in these discussions - there are no indications this will happen, and in fact every indication that with Karzai securing his second term (for himself and his 'network'), they will work as diligently as ever to amass as much money as they can for themselves before the term ends - taking from the international community as well as their fellow Afghans with no concern for the long term consequences and only a very few of them putting any of that back into their communities. I cannot understand how people are so ready to send thousands of troops to "protect the population" from insurgents and yet leave them in the hands of a government riddled with "corruption, human rights abuses and liars". Without significant guarantees from the Afghans that they will step up, the U.S. must be willing to change course and pull the rug out from under them. Nothing else will result in any change, and we'll face an "Afghanistan - The Unraveling" in two years time.
Also a bit unsure how Galbraith could have been removed without the U.S. supporting it, at least tacitly. I also find the implications of that very disturbing.
I'm also not sure what
I'm also not sure what "protecting the population" means in the case of Afghanistan. Most Afghans live in villages and not cities or towns. If McCrhystal's plan is to guard the cities and towns he'll officially leave 80% of the people without even the pretense of NATO security (which even now is illusory). Presumably the Taliban et al will expand their parallel government in the areas vacated by NATO troops and eject what's left of the GOA and ANSF.
Currently the security in most important Afghan cities is executed by ANSF- Kabul, Jalalabad, Mazar- so I don't see what the point is of having NATO troops reinforce locations that are already fairly secure. How will more NATO check points and patrols -with their constant worry about suicide bombers- secure the people? The chances are much greater that as NATO forces increase ROE incidents will as well and further alienate Afghans.
Yes the major centers could be "ink spots" but after how many years and does NATO have the time?
If his plan calls for "platoon houses" etc. they will draw fire as well as disrupting village social life. Many will be under siege very quickly and of course casualties from IEDs will go up as the bombers will know where their targets will be with far more certainty.
"Government work is no place
"Government work is no place for an honest man." @Greyhawk...
LOL
And there are no honest men left, it seems.
Everybody see the Salesman get punked out by the IOC?
Add your comment