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.
On Afghanistan's Search for a Credible Partner in Afghanistan
May 23, 2012 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:10am | 5 Comments
Since 2001:
- The United States has had seven ambassadors to Afghanistan.
- The U.S. military has had eight military commanders in Afghanistan.
- The NATO coaltion has had 14 commanders in Afghanistan.
That is no way to win a war, folks. My column in World Politics Review this week looks at the way in which the United States and its allies, while complaining a lot about the government in Afghanistan, have not ourselves been the most dependable partners.
And who allowed their
And who allowed their President to serve 5 year terms and his drug dealing brother to have free reign over that wastland? Doesn't he also hold Legal Perminant Reidence in the United States still?
Last I heard if your a president or leader to a foreign country you have to renounce your US citizenship or LPR Status.
Who do you think is allowing that to happen Dr. Exum?
Exum, none of this should be
Exum, none of this should be a surprise to you. People always move around in the military, it is musical chairs.
Problem is no one stopped it as Afghanistan evolved, responsibility did not survive the command changes that is how upper management get their ticket punched to move up, and now it has turned into long term foreign aid. The long term part is a matter of saving face for the Trillions and lives wasted. This should have been a CT operation limited in scope to what would fit on a 3x5 card. If Afghanistan was limited to CT then the story would be completely different today. The fight did not stay long in Afghanistan, but the troops did and that was the problem.
Here is a prediction. The Taliban will own it after 2014. It is going to happen by mutual agreement, it is the lowest possible energy state. Afghan government will exist to take money from America and the Taliban will be a willing partner.
Now you can write a new page in the COIN manual, one that the Pentagon knew up front but would never willingly admit .
...."Don't do it unless you are willing to risk you career on it by making it your career. If you fail in your career, then so goes your creditability."
The Pentagon is a political creature, it will never risk its creditability. Generals are political creatures and use command to move up and never let the grass grew around their feet.
creditability above should be
creditability above should be credibility
One of these days I will learn to spell. Maybe about the time that US of A wins a COIN war.
Mr. Exum, you nailed it.
Mr. Exum, you nailed it. When I was active duty back in the '90s, I always felt that our policy of rotating officers every 2 or 3 years was barely sustainable even then. In wartime, it's madness.
"More attached to our personnel system than we are to winning the war." Exactly right.
The Personnel system being
The Personnel system being the root of most of our Institutional
Vices and thwarting our plans has been known for decades. Notice nothing changed?
And we need to bail on Astan at rout speed.
Add your comment