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.
UK Strategy and Defense Policy: Where Should It Go?
It has not escaped the British Ministry of Defense -- excuse me, Ministry of Defence -- that we colonists have a rather more lively public debate on our defense policy than does the mother country. As such, the MoD has partnered with known Canadian David Betz and the Kings of War Blog (hosted by the War Studies Department of King's College London) to seek fresh ideas from the educated public. CLICK HERE to read about the project David and the UK's grandly titled "Strategy Unit"* have embarked upon. Be you British, American, a member of the Commonwealth or just a nerd with an interest in UK defense policy, sound off and write in with your ideas.
*The US translation of "Strategy Unit" is "Shawn Brimley".
'we colonists have a rather
'we colonists have a rather more lively public debate on our defense policy than does the mother country'
Well of course. Until the US makes up its mind there's not much point in worrying about it is there?
My comment from the KOW
My comment from the KOW blog: "The greatest problem “we” need to tackle is also our greatest advantage in my opinion: Immense amount of soft power and civil resources lie untapped, with what seems like a communication-gap between civilians and uniforms hindering its implementation. The failure to effectively start meaningful pop-centric goodwill building off the bat back in 2002 seems to illustrate this disconnect between reality and politics, as does the lack of seriousness in building the Karzai-state framework.. So, what is most urgently needed in my opinion is a rapid new structure for making our technological superiority benefit the citizens of Afghanistan. The problem is that it may be too late. The hope lies in that it may not be too late."
To that may be added the element of clearing up responsibility for mission-contribution and commandstructure for ISAF forces, but thats not a specific british problem.
On a larger, strategic
On a larger, strategic scale, since this is after all a strategic debate: We need to sit down and examine the structures of capitalism. As the crisis has shown, the very infrastructure that we rely on as our logistic base is more or less open to, and controlled by, sharks and short-term profit mechanics. A core strategical idea is to map out your resources for a arch of time, and the current economical system makes it nearly impossible to do that.
Add to that the amount of illegal money that constitutes part of the enemies logistical base, and a serious overhaul of our whole financial system seems in order. Ive been reading up on the Iceland example as a micro to the macro lately, and its damn fascinating how human greed and stupidity can affect the fates of thousands and thousands of people.
Fantastic point, fnord. Just
Fantastic point, fnord.
Just the other week, a colleague and I sent some medical textbooks through Operation Medical Libraries and received, in thanks, a letter on ISAF letter head thanking our group for the gift, stating that the books would benefit the Afghan people 'most'. The doctor signing the letter was a graduate of our medical school! Complete coincidence: I found the organization while researching a question I had posed on another blog.
So, now, I've forward the letter to one of our deans. I want our medical students to be involved in some way (still working on that :) ). The point of my anecdote? I get emails, regularly, about DOD grants for medical research. They come from our research office and are culled there, I suppose. I used to get similar messages when still in Boston at the Hospital Which Shall Not Be Named (it's a little joke btwn me and my friends, the Boston thing was cool, and all). I drop into this little Abu M online world because I am interested, or seek out information in milblogs, but at professional meetings or in professional settings, I hear nothing about the medical mission in Afghanistan, but I sure do hear about other government goals and plans. And, for heaven's sake, the medical thing is supposed to be kind of important to the mission, right? I know it's been deemed a success with the polio campaign, etc, so maybe you don't need any more of us, I dunno. fnord is onto something.
There is a communications gap between civilians and it is broader than even the specific examples within Afghanistan that fnord is referring to. It is a sort of national problem, imho. I could be all wrong about this, and mistaking taking my own anecdotal experience as indicative, which is always a danger. Something is wrong, though, I think. Some link is missing between 'inside the beltway' and 'outside the beltway', and it's bigger than even Afghanistan or our mission there. Some essential link is broken. This is all very rambling and confessional, and maybe completely off the mark, but *something* seems very wrong.
Yeah, yeah, I know this was
Yeah, yeah, I know this was supposed to be a KOW thread, but I already comment, haphazardly, over there, so I hope you don't mind the digression!
Whoa, hold on a second. Ex,
Whoa, hold on a second.
Ex, I understand what you're saying with "we colonists have a rather more lively public debate on our defense policy than does the mother country," but some elements of the UK political debate are beyond the pale in the U.S.
For instance, the barbs traded throughout July over helicopters, armored vehicles, and troop levels were beyond the kind of thing the American public would stand. A Labour peer saying Sir Richard should "get on with the job" and stop insinuating more resources were needed, followed by the Minister of Defence ordering an investigation into Dannatt's expenses on MoD air travel to embarrass him, are the kind of things we don't see here.
Matt
In the UK we are too quick
In the UK we are too quick to blame government and almost never hear critisism of the senior ranks/ decision makers. Senior military personnel are rarely replaced, it's a job for life. It's too easy to blame Gordon Brown for not enough resources. The media hardly ever asks the military tough questions as they are too Westminster- centric. If it's not about personality politics it doesnt matter. This means we are too slow in learning from mistakes as no one is held to account.
No one in the MOD has been held accountable for the ridiculous procurement debacles over the last decade. If they hadn't wasted so much money, maybe we'd have a few more choppers by now.
I almost forgot today...
I almost forgot today... Happy Man Love Thursday everybody!
We have been taught some
We have been taught some hard lessons since 2003. We are still in the fight, but we are a middle ranking EU power.
The spirit is willing................. You really will have to help out again. I'm sorry but most ordinary ( Sorry Londonstani but checkout how many people actually buy the Guardian ) Brits are with you - they just don't have the means.
"We have been taught some
"We have been taught some hard lessons since 2003. We are still in the fight, but we are a middle ranking EU power."
The EU's very own Texas in some respects.
Middle ranking in the EU!
Middle ranking in the EU! The UK has the best military in the EU, is the biggest cultural and financial power house and remains one of only two EU nations to have a nuclear deterrent. There are a huge number of current problems and the UK does very badly out of the EU due to some effective slander, a homegrown political divide and lack of muscle in the European Parliament but the UK remains in a much better position than Eire or Poland or Italy.
Great idea this strategic debate.
Well I think it's a fair
Well I think it's a fair assessment that the fundamental rethink of the kind of Army the US Army wants to be has not even begun to take place in the UK. In my experince, military decisons are made based on how they will benfit the UK, not on how they will benefit the population. I think a lot of military people view this as the British military vs the Taleban, and barely stop to consider the human terrain inbetween.
I heard a BBC Radio documentary recently about COIN workshops becoming a key facet of pre deployment training in the US; the UK has no such thing. In my opinion, it is a conventional Army which is still trying to the job in a conventional manner. How often has it been said that large scale ops should be replaced by myriad smaller ones - well every single Brigade since the UK's deployment to Helmand has carried out a large scale Brigade level sweep op. Sangin, Musa Qala, Nad-e-Ali, Babaji...it goes on. Approximately six monhtly Brigade level conventional ops, where In all instances little or no permanent presence has been left outside the urban centres and the Taleban has reinfiltrated without difficulty.
Certainly, the British Army does not have the same kind of internal debate that the US seems to have had. And hampering everything is a lack of resources becasue military misspending is so manifestly pervasive and the breathtaking bureaucracy which can make it seem like the British Army is a car running on treacle rather than petrol. But if this is about doctrine, this is an Army whose officers and soldiers, from the infantry platoon commander through to the intelligence operator, are tought how to wage war, which is something it's very good at. But in Helmand that kind of ethos means it is...eating soup with a knife, perhaps?
The UK military is a terrifically conservative organisation headed by conservative people from archetypally conservative backgrounds. Asking it to fundamentally alter its stance is perhaps somewhat optimistic. There are doubtless people with their fingers in their ears who can't wait till Helmand goes away.
It comes down to -- does it
It comes down to -- does it not -- the question of whether we want a high-tech manoeuvre warfare army or a man-power-heavy COIN army. We don't have the cash to have both. At present we have the former fighting the later and it doesn't seem to be working too well. That said, I'm not in favour of totally re-tooling our armed forces to fight COIN, nor am I in favour of trying to look at the US and construct our AF so that they can only fight in tandem with them.
Someone said the other day
Someone said the other day (abu Muqawama I believe) that we would negotiate or work with moderate members of the Taliban.
First off, where are the moderate Taliban that we can work with? In a negotiation, one party gives a little bit, and the other party does too. How do we negotiate with a party that is uncompromising? Should we propose that the Taliban only kill half of the school children they did during FY 2009? It's ridiculous. When you are dealing with uncompromising parties, like Imperial Japan, unfortunately it can only be done when they are significantly weakened to the point that they can no longer continue the fight. Withholding air and artillery support, involving Iran and Syria, and all the other goofball nonsense this new philosophy of warfare comes up with only emboldens the enemy.
If your goal is to engage the Taliban, what will you do about the other hordes of Islamic terrorist groups? Just like OBL saw the US as a paper tiger after the US showed weakness in the face of Islamists over the last several administrations, they will all see weakness too. Pretty soon every damned one of the Islamic terror groups someone listed yesterday are going to want to accomplish their objectives too - just like we did with the Taliban.
Anyone who says that engaging terrorists will work either has NO CLUE what they are talking about, or is one of the terrorists themselves.
So does anyone want to defend the idea of negotiating with the Taliban?
Good point from yesterday,
Good point from yesterday, and if you are the "expert", one that should be easy to answer:
"So tell me gentlemen, How many years will it take to change a civilization based on Islam and a deep personal belief of the precepts of that belief? How many lives will it cost? How much money? and finally how much will it cost us as a country and a people to become............... "Just Like Them" and force change that is not of their own choice?"
At long last questions are
At long last questions are beginning to be asked about the UK military's effectiveness. For far too long - decades, as in back-to-1918 decades, the British military has been in denial and in decline. There are a host of cultural, political and historical reasons for this, and they are far too complicated to explore here. What we can do is say that The Emperor Has No Clothes, and then agree that those that care about the UK's place and role in the world need to think very hard about what to do about it. What is encouraging is that some people, mainly academics but also some ex-soldiers, are doing some good work in illuminating the problems. Paul Cornish has written some good articles on the malign consequences - for British military culture - of victory in the Second World War. David Betz, John Mackinlay and Paddy Little have written good articles on the weakness of the British Army today. For Americans, this process of critical review is common sense; for the UK, this is groundbreaking stuff. We have nothing, nothing at all, to compare with the intellectual debate, nor the culture to support it, that we see in America. So, before we start talking about a new strategy, we need to recognise that we have fundamental problems, and recognise that the institutions, processes and culture that are in place are part of the problem. One ray of sunlight was the new CGS's speech to Chatham House: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/events/view/-/id/1253/
If he can translate that into real change then we have a leader who might, might, be able to turn this around. But, he is going to need the help of a well intentioned, sceptical, critical, and informed public. So, lets get on with it.
Wow.. this seems way overdue
Wow.. this seems way overdue to me. But, if they are asking the public to write in with ideas, doesn't that mean that its not very serious? One area that really needs to be built is the idea that civilian and military can work together to stabilise conflict zones. Not being totally up on this, I thought it was a US plan, but I was abruptly pulled up by a civil servant friend who said it was a UK idea from the start and the US just ran with it..however, what's the point of thinking up good ideas if you arent going to do anything about them? So where is the UK in implementing this? Apparently, they might have some staff by 2011.. or 2012. Around the same time Boris Johnson leaves office"First off, where are the
"First off, where are the moderate Taliban that we can work with?"
Hi Vistor 9:06. First off, many former Taliban members defected to Afghanistan and now serve in the government. I consider these people "moderate Taliban". So it can work.
Secondly, my view is that the "moderate Taliban" are the Taliban who are ideologically opposed to the United States and desire for Pasthun control over Afghanistan (as opposed to having non-Pasthuns and "outsiders" control Afghanistan), but are willing to also fight against other Taliban forces and Al-Qaeda. You need to compromise, of course, promise the moderate Taliban power in return for aid against these other forces. They are "moderate" in that they dislike the United States, but do not hate it entirely. They are not "moderate" in terms of social issues. Let that be clear.
Afghanistan was not invaded for human rights, it was invaded for security reasons. And remember that it was President Hamid Karzi (the "good guy") who once supported that law curbing human rights. Better to work with more honest people.
Also. You present a false
Also.
You present a false delimma. We aren't talking to EVERY SINGLE "terrorist" group, just groups that meet our very hard qualifications (you have to be against a common enemy, the Taliban, for instance). It's called "divide and conquer", and it was a major reason behind British control of Afghanistan and the surge success in Iraq (the "Sons of Iraq"). But before you get an alliance, you need to talk.
Al-Qaeda is good with propaganda, but it is better to be called "weak" rather than to keep on fighting for a long, long time, and prove to the entire world that you are indeed "weak". And you are underestimating the propaganda that would be used otherwise: you fight more enemies than you actually need to, making "success" less likely.
New Usama bin Laden Audio
New Usama bin Laden Audio Message "To the People of Europe" Released Today, Listen to It
Not to tell the UK how to
Not to tell the UK how to fry it's rashers...but...if you really want a meaningful debate, it begins with: Start.Firing.Generals.
Otherwise, it's a wankfest. (What do they call "Circle Jerk in Chavistanoo?)
AM...you read the writing on the wall as far as Bammy and Astan (and CNAS's future as the Sith, with you as Anakin) and you're fishing for new digs? Eh?
Well I wouldn't blame you.
And now for your horrified entertainment..... "The 6,192-nd meeting of the Security Council (UN) will come to order"
Said without a trace of irony.
He'll end his days selling health insurance door to door. Which if he had on his current resume would be a quantum improvement to what's there now.
Gordon Brown's starting not to look so bad.
If you missed it, there's been quite the public uptick in plots here in the USA. That's the dividend for the "outreach" to all the wrong people in the Muslim World.
As man-love Thursday Visitor may agree, along with....anyone who knows WTF they're talking about, which apparently is NO ONE in the WH or DOS.... these people know a bitch when they see one. Reminds me of Ned Beatty offering to buy some moonshine from the Rednecks Still in "Deliverance."
Squeal Piggy, Squeal. Do some praying for us, boy.
Sorry to be so crude. That's just the way it is....
This crap is calibrated for Community Organizers to blackmail spineless Academics and squeeze $$ from Businessmen who just decide to write it off....it's not gonna impress who he's dealing with- MEN.
One Guy... : No we won't
One Guy... :
No we won't talk to every singe terrorist group - at first. But if you are a terrorist group and see us grant the Taliban legitimacy, won't you want legitimacy too? This idea some have of talking it out with world-domination types will embolden the other world-domination types. Instead of a bane to humanity, terrorism becomes a way to get to the head of the table.
And what does it matter if YOU call former members of the Taliban "moderate Taliban"? If you leave the Taliban, it is likely that you aren't part of the Taliban any more, isn't it? You and I can call them the fluffy bunny squadron - it doesn't matter! What do they stand for? THAT is the important thing. And by the way, There happens to be a bit more to the Taliban's charter than you have mentioned. A LOT more.
There isn't such a thing as global dominance under the flag of Islam... in moderation. Just as Hitler couldn't conduct genocide in moderation. That's why they have to resort to terrorism - because Western civilization - or maybe just the US - won't stand in line for what the Taliban and their fellow Islamic fundamentalist groups offer. I for one think women are good for something besides raising hordes of little jihadis (and a receptacle for domestic violence). And I don't care who you are, it should be a universal human right for people to buy of all genders to buy cucumbers in markets!
This is the elephant in the room that many here seem to have missed. COIN has a role here and there - when used in conjunction with more effective strategy... but how on earth will it work amongst Islamic populations in the absence of an all-out attack on the Taliban and AQAM? You don't placate terrorists. Let them hate so long as they fear - and that is why we invaded afghanistan, not to put in a gov't we really, really like and to use our military to become community volunteers and organizers. That is the action of an imperialist country, only a very silly one as we would be the first country to have an empire that only serves to drain our resources.
"And I don't care who you
"And I don't care who you are, it should be a universal human right for people to buy of all genders to buy cucumbers in markets!"
Hysterical.
"...an imperialist country, only a very silly one as we would be the first country to have an empire that only serves to drain our resources."
Ever hear of "The Mouse that Roared" ? We got there awhile ago...Hell, all of Europe and most of our allies are basically straphangers. Rhodes sent more men and ships to fight with the Romans against Macedonia then NATO has sent to Astan (excepting the Brits). An Empire that pays tribute to it's vassals.
COIN has a role, but it doesn't matter when your Head Shed (read: WH) is fucked up. That's the decision maker, and he ain't sold, in part cuz he can't sell it to his base. He will NOT get the Independent vote back so he's going to have to placate his base...he's from Chicago where the actual "Chicago Way" is to make a deal with anyone. It's either 1) Peace with honor solongnowgottarungoodluckandthanksforallthesmack or less likely 2) he falls back on what Bush did, which was to remember why we we there instead of why we weren't but paradoxically indulge the Euros' Social Democracy in Astan fantasies. And pay Pakistan off and hope against hope they might fight. Oh, and drones.
The offshore option is of course a fantasy. Funny how many smart people buy into it...
Don't worry your pretty (or hairy) little heads about it my dears. The little curlies on my perineum straightening out tell me we are about to get bitch smacked with a "game changer". Apparently we need frequent reminders.
Then we see who's who....
One Guy Who Proposed Talking
One Guy Who Proposed Talking to the Moderate Taliban is living in a fairy tail world of cotton candy clouds which adorn a pie in the sky. "Taliban" is derived from the word "talib" which means "student". These are not students of anti-imperialism, they are students of deobandi and other forms of Shariah Law. There is no way whatsoever to separate the militant and social aspects of Shariah Law; therefore, One Guy presents the ultimate in a false dichotomy by saying there is such a thing as "moderate taliban". I have heard it said by many insiders and outsiders of the AfPak debate that "Taliban" is another way of saying "young out of work Afghan man", but this belief is not only quixotic, it is against all reason. Sure, some of the Taliban have defected and joined the government; this is nothing new for opportunists and nationalists working multiple sides of the board.
Just because a Talib has joined the Afghans does not mean he is moderate, it just means he has a new vehicle for advancing the aims and underhanded activities of the Taliban, from opium harvesting, to illegal trafficking, to weapons ratlines, to police informants, to judiciary bribery. It is not reasonable to say that a "moderate taliban" exist precisely because the Taliban were a construct of the Pakistani ISI. The ISI is operating on multiple levels to establish strategic depth all along the Pakistan border, and these Talib have pushed over into Afghanistan, upward into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and there are 40 or 50 encampments on the Indian Kashmiri border. Currently, U.S. intelligence has multiple embeds in multiple networks and through the ISI and other intelligence agencies targets and works on isolating and disrupting multiple streams of the Taliban in the Baluchi, FATA, and NWFP. McChrystal has recently identified the Hekmatyar, Haqqani, and Quetta council as the enemy...the "moderate taliban" you speak of are receiving their "marching" orders from these disparate streams as well as Iran, Al Qaeda, and multiple donor states in the Arab Gulf states.
The belief that there is such a thing as a not so extreme jihadist is literally absurdity on a stick. The Taliban form a network with Al Qaeda. If we negotiate with the Taliban, the information will find its way into Al Qaeda hands. The Taliban, for 20 years have wreaked havok on the populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
For Abu Muqawama, who worked with McChrystal on his Assessment in Afghanistan and the CNAS Triage pamphlet back in June to say that it is possible to pull off the layers of the Taliban like an onion is not a testament to a grand vision or full understanding...it is as Andrew McCarthy's book title states "Willful Blindness". To remove the jihadist nature from the Islamic Supremacist beast of multiple organizations and focus on its "extremist" nature and then try to pigeonhole the movement into political numbers such as 7% of the population supports the Taliban and Al Qaeda...and only a small % of militants are truly on the Al Qaeda bandwagon is ludicrous. Their leaders have said over and over that the Al Qaeda and Taliban organization are one and the same Takfiri Umma. The fact that the opportunities for young illiterate men lead them into the arms of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not a testament to a workable entreaty for these men to choose a different road - there is no YMCA down the block with a big brother project like there is in NYC grottoes. This is a place where the opportunities are simple - either resist the Shariah Law demanded at the point of a gun, or join the forces. Yes, circumstance plays a part...but if we are to end the cycle, we can't get around the fact that Islamic Supremacy in the region is the guiding light and uniting force of the "extremists". And there is no talking or negotiating with an Islamic Supremacist if you are an infidel, unless it be from a position of complete and utter submission - a state that guarantees them a safe haven, a state that guarantees them the time and support enough to rearm, regroup, and radicalize a new crop of followers.
You see, One Guy Who thinks talking to the Moderate Taliban is a good idea believes that the 20,000 deobandi madrassas that are spewing anti-American, anti-infidel rhetoric don't really mean what they say throughout the durand border region. This is the ultimate in willful blindness. The fact is, 10 to 25 jihadis graduate everyday from 10 to 20,000 madrassas. And anyway you look at it, regardless of the first causes or circumstances, every year, a new crop of 100,000 to 250,000 jihadist extremists make there way into the battle lines on multiple levels of capacity and operation.
We have to wake up. There is no talking without submission.
@ ELF: "And now for your
@ ELF:
"And now for your horrified entertainment..... "The 6,192-nd meeting of the Security Council (UN) will come to order"
I really and truly LOL'ed at that. Well, after I cried, a little. The 6,192nd, eh? Good freakin' grief.
I apologize if this note
I apologize if this note appears twice...my computer froze the first time I attempted to post.
One Guy Who Proposed Talking to the Moderate Taliban is living in a fairy tail world of cotton candy clouds which adorn a pie in the sky. "Taliban" is derived from the word "talib" which means "student". These are not students of anti-imperialism, they are students of deobandi and other forms of Shariah Law. There is no way whatsoever to separate the militant and social aspects of Shariah Law; therefore, One Guy presents the ultimate in a false dichotomy by saying there is such a thing as "moderate taliban". I have heard it said by many insiders and outsiders of the AfPak debate that "Taliban" is another way of saying "young out of work Afghan man", but this belief is not only quixotic, it is against all reason. Sure, some of the Taliban have defected and joined the government; this is nothing new for opportunists and nationalists working multiple sides of the board.
Just because a Talib has joined the Afghans does not mean he is moderate, it just means he has a new vehicle for advancing the aims and underhanded activities of the Taliban, from opium harvesting, to illegal trafficking, to weapons ratlines, to police informants, to judiciary bribery. It is not reasonable to say that a "moderate taliban" exist precisely because the Taliban were a construct of the Pakistani ISI. The ISI is operating on multiple levels to establish strategic depth all along the Pakistan border, and these Talib have pushed over into Afghanistan, upward into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and there are 40 or 50 encampments on the Indian Kashmiri border. Currently, U.S. intelligence has multiple embeds in multiple networks and through the ISI and other intelligence agencies targets and works on isolating and disrupting multiple streams of the Taliban in the Baluchi, FATA, and NWFP. McChrystal has recently identified the Hekmatyar, Haqqani, and Quetta council as the enemy...the "moderate taliban" you speak of are receiving their "marching" orders from these disparate streams as well as Iran, Al Qaeda, and multiple donor states in the Arab Gulf states.
The belief that there is such a thing as a not so extreme jihadist is literally absurdity on a stick. The Taliban form a network with Al Qaeda. If we negotiate with the Taliban, the information will find its way into Al Qaeda hands. The Taliban, for 20 years have wreaked havok on the populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
For Abu Muqawama, who worked with McChrystal on his Assessment in Afghanistan and the CNAS Triage pamphlet back in June to say that it is possible to pull off the layers of the Taliban like an onion is not a testament to a grand vision or full understanding...it is as Andrew McCarthy's book title states "Willful Blindness". To remove the jihadist nature from the Islamic Supremacist beast of multiple organizations and focus on its "extremist" nature and then try to pigeonhole the movement into political numbers such as 7% of the population supports the Taliban and Al Qaeda...and only a small % of militants are truly on the Al Qaeda bandwagon is ludicrous. Their leaders have said over and over that the Al Qaeda and Taliban organization are one and the same Takfiri Umma. The fact that the opportunities for young illiterate men lead them into the arms of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not a testament to a workable entreaty for these men to choose a different road - there is no YMCA down the block with a big brother project like there is in NYC grottoes. This is a place where the opportunities are simple - either resist the Shariah Law demanded at the point of a gun, or join the forces. Yes, circumstance plays a part...but if we are to end the cycle, we can't get around the fact that Islamic Supremacy in the region is the guiding light and uniting force of the "extremists". And there is no talking or negotiating with an Islamic Supremacist if you are an infidel, unless it be from a position of complete and utter submission - a state that guarantees them a safe haven, a state that guarantees them the time and support enough to rearm, regroup, and radicalize a new crop of followers.
You see, One Guy Who thinks talking to the Moderate Taliban is a good idea believes that the 20,000 deobandi madrassas that are spewing anti-American, anti-infidel rhetoric don't really mean what they say throughout the durand border region. This is the ultimate in willful blindness. The fact is, 10 to 25 jihadis graduate yearly from each of 10 to 20,000 madrassas. And anyway you look at it, regardless of the first causes or circumstances, every year, a new crop of 100,000 to 250,000 jihadist extremists make there way into the battle lines on multiple levels of capacity and operation.
We have to wake up. There is no talking without submission.
....lawyers, and snobby
....lawyers, and snobby Yuppies (not you AM. Really. You need some more $$ for one thing)....
COIN types really, really need to make the case for the restrictive ROE better. It's not selling. But far more important... use some judgment with ROE calls please. If the leader in Combat tells you he really needs Air or Arty, he gets it. Meaning - he gets his request for support, not "he gets it" meaning he's down with the COIN Dogma of putative civilians and their goats over our peeps. Instead of being told to die for Dogma and then have your dying moments broadcast to the world . (oh AP? In the spirit of the First Amendment FUCK YOU).
And the TOC Jockeys who deny these calls should get a little wall to wall counseling...or worse. Quite serious, you don't deserve to wear the uniform, never mind second guess decisions of men in contact. Get out and go be ambulance chasing trial lawyers, or community organizers.
I really, really hope I just hurt the right feelings. Really.
The Press machine is finally starting to wake up to the ROE ...
"The rules of engagement again played a role. "U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and treelines," Landay wrote, "despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."
Rotten Fish Eggs
This may have something to do with a Dem being in the WH. Just as the Repubs could never be greedy or bloodthirsty enough for the Left, Dems can never be pussy enuf for the Right. Really, I do buy into the concept, but it's got to be sold better. Less self flagellation please, more on we'd be killing potential allies. Make it a simple, catchy jingle ala "The Surge" (but you can't recycle that, sorry).
On self flagellation when civilians get hurt - look, this is a very Left leaning Dem administration. So just ditch the public penance - the rules have changed. You will make the political leadership very vulnerable to charges of getting people killed over PC nonsense. That undermines your cause. I don't like the man but having lived thru two emasculated Administrations in a row, I want what's better for the country.
(of course the last Admin did ROE/PC as well. But their Repubs - they can get away with it. Rather like Dems can make a shitload of money on Wall Street and the Repubs still get called "greedy").
From the link in elf's
From the link in elf's post:
"According to a detailed account in The Washington Post -- a story that has received too little attention in the ongoing debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan -- the local Afghan leaders told McChrystal to stop being so fussy and to go ahead and kill the enemy, which they said would help bring stability to the region."
"The security situation has been getting worse in Kunduz, Wardak told McChrystal. American and NATO troops haven't been aggressive enough in pursuing and killing the Taliban."
Holy s**t! It looks like your "trolls" are in the Washington Post and Afghanistan now, Exum!
Just curious, how will investigators tell the Taliban apart from civilians when they all carry rifles and dress the same?
Rock on ELF. I agree 100%
Rock on ELF. I agree 100%
"stop being so fussy and to
"stop being so fussy and to go ahead and kill the enemy, which they said would help bring stability to the region."
Please see above remarks on self flagellation. (Even the literal kind doesn't go down too well when it makes it to youtube. Ask those contractors).
And that WaPo reporter R.C is the author of "Life inside the Emerald City: Tales from the Green Zone". He's not exactly on AEI's Christmas card list. I mean not conservative....
Git 'er done.
I actually read earlier
I actually read earlier today in John Nagl's "Learning To Eat Soup With A Knife" about how the organizational culture of the British military is not favorably inclined toward the suggestions of intellectuals and theorists, pointing to the 'on the job' training most officers received in far-flung areas of the empire and how it tended to contrast with the training they received in military academies, so this is an interesting development.
Elf, all of R.C.'s summer
Elf, all of R.C.'s summer WaPo work is on www.theafpakreader.wordpress.com - so is Karen DeYoung and Ann Scott Tyson's work.
I won't respond after this
I won't respond after this post.
Vistor 2:30 (and also addressed to Mr. Absurdity on a Stick): "No we won't talk to every singe terrorist group - at first. But if you are a terrorist group and see us grant the Taliban legitimacy, won't you want legitimacy too? This idea some have of talking it out with world-domination types will embolden the other world-domination types. Instead of a bane to humanity, terrorism becomes a way to get to the head of the table."
You assume something that I don't. I don't automatically assume ALL Taliban members wants world domination, in much the same way I don't assume the US or China or Russia or EU or anyone want world domination. The moderate Taliban want Afghanistan...and only Afghanistan.
The Taliban already got legitimacy. They are able to exist and keep on fighting against the US.
"There isn't such a thing as global dominance under the flag of Islam... in moderation."
That's the thing. The Taliban isn't fighting for that. They are fighting to restore Pashtun dominance, get America out, and possibly implement a stricter form of Shariah law. That's it. The main Taliban command is aligned with Al-Qaeda, and they wants to go and form an Islamic caliphate, and I guess the main Taliban command is supportive of that (by giving them safe havens), but the Taliban itself will likely be content with Afghanistan and the Northwest Territories.
But the "moderate Taliban" does not have to agree with the goals of Al-Qaeda. But they do want Pashtun dominance, they do want America out, and they do want possibly implement a stricter form of Shariah law. And these people are there, some has already defected. Why not keep on doing that?
Mr. Absurdity on a Stick: "The belief that there is such a thing as a not so extreme jihadist is literally absurdity on a stick."
Why so? A Jihadist is, hm...let say, a person who decides to go on "jihad"/struggle/holy war/whatever. Lots of people can go on such a struggle, for various differnet reasons. Some want money, some want to attack America, some just want to be free from "American imperialism". Because there are so many different reasons one can be a jihadist, there is likely an ideological spectrum, with "extermists" on the far end, and "moderates" in the middle. So, the moderates are there.
"Just because a Talib has joined the Afghans does not mean he is moderate, it just means he has a new vehicle for advancing the aims and underhanded activities of the Taliban, from opium harvesting, to illegal trafficking, to weapons ratlines, to police informants, to judiciary bribery."
Interesting that you assume a Moderate Taliban would somehow be working for the 'real' Taliban secretly. But unless you show any evidence of that, I can't really believe you. In any event, Hamid Karazi has been trying to appeal to the "Moderate Taliban" for 5 years...he should have shared your same fears of betaryal, or even more so, since his life is on the line if he judges wrongly. And yet he keeps on appealing to them.
I think you are confusing Taliban sympathizers who may support the Taliban secretly, and a Moderate Taliban who defects from the rest of the Taliban.
"You see, One Guy Who thinks talking to the Moderate Taliban is a good idea believes that the 20,000 deobandi madrassas that are spewing anti-American, anti-infidel rhetoric don't really mean what they say throughout the durand border region."
I never said that, Mr. Absurdity.
But, to entertain you;
1) Where's your numbers?
2) How do you know all 20,000 schools give this rhetoric? Or, are you trying to paint all radicals in one brush?
3) Why do they spew this rhetoric? Do they hate America personally...or just hate America coming in and destroying the Taliban state?
4) Why do a bunch of schoolteachers somehow prove my point wrong? Is it possible that the Moderate Taliban are NOT in charge in these schools, but rather actually fighting?
And, I would rather have anti-American propaganda blare from madrassas than to see another terrorist attack. That IS the reason why the US is fighting this war after all, right? Not to remove ideologies that displeases us?
"every year, a new crop of
"every year, a new crop of 100,000 to 250,000 jihadist extremists make there way into the battle lines on multiple levels of capacity and operation."
My goodness. So now the Taleban are fielding between 800 000 and 2 million fighters? Thats interesting news.
Oh, and Elf, when you discuss the new ROE: Dont blame it on "COIN guys" when you should be writing "Gen. Mc Chrystal and Petraeus". Its not like they have abdicated in favour of Exum and the reborn Kagans.
@ One Guy who invented the
@ One Guy who invented the moderate Taliban:
After reading your first post, it appears that you just made up this "moderate Taliban" group yourself. Your premise is ridiculous - this is the real world, not some fantasy land. This is as absurd as explaining that Superman isn't real.
You seem to be in the position that you know more about the Taliban than they do. Pay no attention to what they say, right? Does the Taliban get a say in what their goals are, or do you represent them?
The US should NEVER work with a group of people that slaughter children to further their interests.
@Fnord, I was sending out a
@Fnord,
I was sending out a general COIN Clarion Call that they need to sell this better, recognize the political landscape has changed (Repub administrations get painted bloodthirsty, Dems as appeasing pussies) -- and in context of that DO NOT deny the Leader on the Ground in contact Arty or CAS because of some lazy TOC jockey who can't be bothered to run the risk of agreeing to fire support wants to CYA himself more than support the man in contact.
We have an atrocious habit in the American Army of second guessing the man on the spot. Among Officers it's almost second nature. It's revolting. And wrong, and self defeating.
I'm told for instance the Brits do it better, they don't second guess the Johnny on the spot.
More than that when word gets out that people died because they were lacking fire support it totally undercuts the COIN narrative, and frankly undercuts the "protect the Afghan civilians" message they are selling.
And they're selling here more than anywhere, so I wrote my political graffiti here...
Peace out, Fnord....
(And O/T - but I just had Korean Fried Chicken . Only in America, b*tches!!!)
Mr. Absurdity on a Stick - I
Mr. Absurdity on a Stick - I like that. I have come to the conclusion that One Guy yadda yadda yadda is just that - yadda yadda yadda. He is all talk and no stay (judging by his refusal to comment beyond the last post), a devil's advocate, advocating for the notion that the Taliban and the defectors are somehow rational actors instead of barbarous, anti-human actors without the ability to utilize reason. The demand for stricter Shariah Law is not a rational demand...it is a demand that is positively opposed to Human Rights. The Afghan and Pakistan Constitutions are based on Shariah Law...why does it need to be stricter Shariah?
As to Karzai's appeal to the "moderate Taliban elements" for the last 5 years...he is a Pashtun, over 40% of Afghanistan's population is Pashtun, he also holds a percentage of the Baluchi population as support. He is appealing to Hanafi Fundamentalists rather than Hanbali Literalists. It is a strange appeal, but it is not beyond the pale considering the last twenty years of twisted alliances and nationalist movements and border disputes of the region. As to his survival - well, let's face it, the pro-government drug gangs which are melded into the underworld of the illicit trade and trafficking markets from op to appliances to human slave cargos tends to operate right under his nose, the governors and police chief posts operate as concessions and backroom channels for the Talib shadow governments that move in to influence and then dominate a region. The reason the Talib are willing to work with the Afghan National system is because it is not that much of a stretch to work for a drug syndicate or arms trafficking ring with clean money after working for a nefarious crime syndicate underground with laundered money. So, for those who are playing both sides of the Taliban/Northern Alliance fence, either through Hawaladar laundering rackets or via positions of influence which provide legitimate fences for the Taliban or travel permits for Taliban smuggler's networks which provide access to ports and through checkpoints with a little greasing and bribery.
I am not going to provide proof of this - since the person discussing the topic is willing to remain blind to a logical reality of a corrupt regime amid a thug-rich jihadocracy it is a pointless endeavor - especially since his word above will be the last word on the matter. Call me Mr. Absurd on a stick for not taking a jihadist Talibani maniac at his word. You know, those who would just as soon slice my jugular as listen to my terms for coexistence and has already proved as much through association with suicide bomb factories and with those who would exercise stricter Shariah via the bombing of hundreds of girls' schools and throwing acid in girls faces for attempting to learn as well as cutting fingers off of those who would exercise their own choice through a voting booth in a world of "somehow liberal Shariah" of the Afghan Constitution.
The Taliban will likely be content with the Northwestern Frontier Provinces? Was Hitler happy with just Germany or did he seek to unite the Aryan races in an expanding imperial push? The Taliban are attempting to establish the Afghanistan Emirate...however, on the borders of the emirate is the Fatah region - the opening for expanding the emirate through Jihad. Yadda yadda yadda - your rationale is unsupportable by the records of history, culture, ethics, jihad, Islamic economics, the opium trade, all reasoned analysis would call you an espouser of quicksand rationale. As to your dominance argument and nationalism arguments - there are multiple movements from the Baluch to the Pashtun to the Uzbek Nationalists that are crisscrossing the region, but all are guided, ultimately, by the establishment of an supremacist Islamic Emirate.
As to your amusement offer - thanks. The 20,000 deobandi schools offer a strict interpretation of Shariah along the ibn Taymiya line of rationale, which was later picked up by Muhammad Wahhab (500 years later) and which has rooted itself into the Pashtun culture of the region since the eighteenth century, when a few deobands went on Hajj, and came back radicalized - the opium war of those days was going strong in India and the British did their best to wipe out the Muhammadans of the day, but they took to the mountains. In the 1970s, the oil money from the Saudi world pushed a madrassa upsurge from roughly 300 to upwards of 20,000 in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region, and this was further militarized by the rise of the Mujahideen against the Russians, and the creation of the Frankenstein Talibans by the ISI to guard against a further Russian advance. The average Madrassa has under 1000 students. Only 50 to 75 or so will graduate every year from each of 20,000 madrassas in the Durand region - of those graduates, probably a quarter hold the "Capacity" to wage jihad by the hand...which is why Fazlullah and Mehsud say they could raise a force of 100,000 to 200,000 fighters with a phone call...and since some madrassas operate as indoctrinating facilities, it is likely that 100% of certain schools dedicate themselves to waging jihad with the gun and the bomb...
Now, your last two points are your rhetorical devil's advocate philosopher's stone type questions...and they are comical. Why do they spew rhetoric? Because they want to mold public opinion...so they can rationalize jihad. Just as you are rationalizing why jihad is just a simple struggle that runs along a spectrum of activism, they spew rhetoric until the spectrum of activism is destined to be full bore war.
Why do school teachers defeat your argument? Because these school teachers represent Allah - not reason, not rationality, not law, not order - they represent the Koran and the Shariah Law of the Ulema and provide an indoctrinating narrative that is taken on faith rather than seen as an opinion or a thought process or mental attitude. They are gearing the rationale of the jihadists entering into the theatre into a perpetual warfare mode. For you to accept anti-American rhetoric from those who have attacked America, physically, is to retreat into a 9/10 mentality - you are rationalizing peace at any cost. Should I worry if that rationalization cost you your very own soul? Yes, for your willingness to capitulate sovereignty of person and state are startling cases of unreason and haberdash.
@WTF If the US should never
@WTF
If the US should never work with groups that kill children, then we have bigger issues than negotiating with Pushtun insurgents.
Elf you are right on. Well
Elf you are right on.
Well spoken sir.
The American Army, Navy ,Marine Corps, has been emasculated by ROE, PC and just plain UN pro Islamic sentiment to the point we are just fodder for the Islamic resistance while we rebuild their country better than it ever has been before.
So what does that tell the terrorism school of thought in the ME?
Kill a bunch of us we will come fight you with all the advantages on your side, you can ignore the rules of war, no penalty, you can use human shields and be called "courageous freedom fighters" You don't have to wear a uniform, and to top it off you can kill civilians in any country in the world and not be considered bad.
In addition you will be given legal legitimacy in the UN, and become a political power
THROUGH TERROR TACTICS !!!!!!!!!!!!
Well done Carter, 444 days you held American military and civilians till Islam won.
Do you really think you will stop the terrorists with placation and legitimacy?
Maybe you think so, but NOT at the cost of Americas Marines Army, and Air Force servicemen.
It never fails to amaze me
It never fails to amaze me how many individuals on here have great scholastic knowledge of war.
So why when I present questions about the realities of war am I called a "troll"? Can you just not answer to them?
If so please say so. I will be able to retain respect for a man who says "I don't know" That is the beginning of wisdom.
That is respectable.
Running away and not being able to answer with anything but propaganda is not.
Or is that too hard to understand?
You are 'trolling' because
You are 'trolling' because you bring up wrong headed arguments that aren't relevant to the discussion... kinda like the crowd who keep arguing that Vietnam could have been won if only we had bombed more, sent more/better trained soldiers, allowed for more lax ROE's etc. Not to say that those options can't work, just that they weren't viable for various good reasons. Sadly, we aren't the Roman army.... you're not really trolling, you just aren't bringing anything to the discussion.
the ROE's are changing because we have discovered that we can't simply bomb our way out of the problem. Our current situation/strategy is untenable (the last 8 years are evidence enough). We must find another answer. Improvise, adapt and overcome is the Marine Corps motto. It is unaceptable for us to fight a Sri Lankan style counter-insurgency for numerous reasons... hence we must go the McChrystal route.
I don't dissagree that we could dump 500,000 troops into AFG, put a sniper team on every hilltop, and call in massive arty/airstrikes on everything that moves until every Pashtun male aged 12-60 is dead and their will to fight broken, but that isn't what's on the table (nor should it be).
Why is it you avoid
Why is it you avoid answering relevant questions, saying that it somehow doesn't add anything... and then try to validate your position by creating imaginary arguments and shoot them down?
No one argued that there should be snipers on every rooftop, meatball! Are you high?
Obviously what the military is doing isn't working. How many more years will we keep throwing troops over the cliff before we realize that we should have just destroyed the ability of terrorists in A-Stan to threaten our security and then get the heck out of there?
This Mickey Mouse BS of CNAS and Exum does not work. Call me a troll.... Ignore me... If it worked you'd see the simple questions as an opportunity to set the record straight, but your theories can't stand scrutiny!
You're right, I forgot to
You're right, I forgot to add the option of leaving... Sorry, I thought you were pushing the wipe them out through masses of military power option (that isn't possible at this current time). Leaving is definetly an option, and you would have a good case for stating that the ROE's aren't allowing us to protect ourselves, while being ineffective at the same time, there isn't the political will for a large long term commitment, etc : hence the withdrawl. However, you should realize that I have yet to see a viable option whereby we withdraw while at the same time supressing the terrorist threat. So if you support leaving for the above reasons, realize that southern AFG would once again become a 'terrorist' haven. Some would argue that since Islamic terrorist havens are all over the place (Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc), AFG isn't worth the money and lives we are spending/going to spend there. That's how I see it... it's your call as a taxpayer, I just want people to make informed decisions.
To add to the comment by
To add to the comment by Visitor: You are trolling because you are basing your arguments on a monolithic enemy, when what we are facing is a fractured netwerk consisting of many actors, some of them bribable, some of them plain fighting to kick the furreiners out, some fighting for Allah, and some fighting for the kaliphate and Osamas vision. If we just plain leave after having made a load of promises, we leave the last group the victors. Pulling out ASAP would be a tactical good point, but it would hand strategic victory to the real enemy of this war, Al Quaeda. Oh, and youre a troll for using terms such as "meatball" and "are you high" and in general acting like a freaking adolescent in a highschool locker-room fight.
Elf: My point was that it seems there is a myth growing that the US military has somehow been seduced by liberals, who want to cuddle terrorists, personified as "the COIN guys". Wich somehow makes Petraeus and Mc Chrystal willing stooges for a conspiracy of COIN buddyfuckers, who put their careers above the welfare of the common grunt. And thats a real ugly myth.
Ugh, I wish I could delete
Ugh, I wish I could delete my comment (s) above (9-24/2:12).
I have no idea what I was talking about - I don't want creepy governmental/political goals about anything discussed at any private professional association. What was I thinking? Whole-of-government approach? Please! To go all Elf on you guys/gals, we can't even get our own government to work in a manner many citizens would like in the US at a time of economic need.
I guess I'm just responding, obliquely, to comments in other threads about the civilian effort, and how compartmentalized the Afghanistan war seems from large parts of our society. I dunno. Maybe I'm just expressing frustration that if you don't know what the goals and objectives are, exactly, how can you do your own little personal part, however small that is?
So, wait, maybe I was onto something: communication, goals and objectives matter. Well, duh.
@fnord: the ugly comes out whenever there is a political disagreement. Easier to make individuals into scapegoats than to deal with the issues at hand. Which are difficult, to put it mildly, and, please, don't do that thing where you pay attention to the ugly coming from one 'side' ,only :)
@Fnord, I take your point,
@Fnord,
I take your point, but that's not what I think (I understand you may have been addressing a larger issue).
My point is - units in contact should not be denied support by lassie faire CDR's far away (the impression I'm getting is that being denied support by TOC jockeys is routine. I would love to be wrong). If you follow the link it takes you to a heart wrenching story about the background behind the death of the Marine who's dying agonies were photographed. His father had written his Senator to complain about second guessing Johnny on the spot regards Air support prior to son KIA..
3 weeks later the kid was dead (his dying moments captured for the fun of gutless ghouls and the profit of AP).
My related points to said irrational denial, and the utterly predictable dogmatic depths to which the reasoned arguments and positions of Nagl, Exum, et al would be plunged into once "Big Army" (Big Stupid) embraced it are that a stupid in fact absurd and moronic application of a good idea regardless of circumstances will discredit it.
And it seems to be happening.
It also undermines the public's and a wavering political leadership's confidence and will to fight.
And if you've been following the comments the last few months - more than a few trigger pullers.
Fnord, you don't know how flat out robotic the American Army can get on execution of orders. They treat "Doctrine" as Dogma, in fact they seem to think (when they're safe in the TOC, or the Pentagon) that it's somehow like the standards for the uniform - set in black and white, there it is...can't argue with regs, right?
Then there's the ever present human weakness - in this case fear of ending up as the scapegoat in a PC motivated witch hunt (Chessani et al). In particular affects people who've got only a few to go to get to 20. And whom are already bitter because they know they're fucking strap hanger TOC jockeys.
I don't think we've been seduced by Liberals, I think the PR is coming back bad, and hey maybe that reflects the facts on the ground. Big (Dumb) Army is taking COIN and fucking hugging it so hard it will smother it to death.
I hope this clarifies ... ?
================
And now for something lighter and more in my area of expertise: Drinking. And the Pirates favorite drink (and at least one globetrottting ninja) is of course -- Arrack.
What about this for an exotic cocktail: A triple dose of Arrack inside a Durian husk with the fruit pulped..pour the Arrack over the pulped Durian fruit? Drink thru a straw.
Any takers?
LOL
"I don't think we've been
"I don't think we've been seduced by Liberals, I think the PR is coming back bad, and hey maybe that reflects the facts on the ground. Big (Dumb) Army is taking COIN and fucking hugging it so hard it will smother it to death."
Very good point. Its not that I dont partly agree with you, its just that I hate mythmaking when reality is about moment-to-moment decisions.
Peace.
P.S. Madhu, I have had a lot
P.S. Madhu, I have had a lot of fun discussing the war w my far left friends. Most of the males appreciate the input up here, because we had a effective draft until the OOA (Out of Area) doctrine came during Serbia. ALmost everybody over 35 knows how to blow shit up. The far left females dont get it, except a few dear ones, who come from the working class... ;-) Some get hysteric.
But the real ugly is still coming from the right in disproportianate amounts. And thereby I include islamist extremists in the right., As opposed to the liberals there, wich I would love to hear Ann Coulters opinion off. "Convert or kill them", if I remember correctly?
more of
more of this
http://ironmaiden.webvis.net/images/Albums/Piece-Of-Mind/The-Trooper.jpg
less of this
http://www.mrbean.co.uk/
'MoD pays quadruple in money
'MoD pays quadruple in money + blood for Afghan helicopters'
'In yet another masterly procurement move, the UK Ministry of Defence has decided to spend hundreds of millions of pounds upgrading and restoring its aged Puma helicopters - which were due to retire next year - for service in Afghanistan. This will cost more than buying a fleet of brand new choppers'.
'Yet again, pumping cash into lame-duck British industry which can't survive without constant taxpayer support has been deemed more important than saving the lives of British troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/puma_refurb_comment/
Add your comment