Obama's Afghanistan Plan

[RancidSumo]

I don't know if this will get much interest but I figured that with all of the military people on this site, there has got to be some people with valuable opinions on this. Anyway, I am currently debating the following resolution- Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.. What do all of you military guys or anyone else for that matter think of this? I would love to hear opinions from whatever side you happen to believe.

Thanks.

[FDC]

1. What is you opinion? Are you wanting other people to make up your mind for you?

2. The underline screwed me up. Was there a link? If not, to me it seems like a 2 part question.
a. What is the US's "best interest"
b. If it includes Afghanistan, does having more military there help?


a. I can't answer, and truthfully, that is not the military's role. Ours is not to reason why, etc, etc, blah, blah.

b. If Afghanistan is what we want to do, more maneuver forces and ODAs will help. With the conventional manuever forces we can occupy more COPs, patrol more streets, provide more security, enable more ANSF, etc. Let's face it--in the mountains we barely control what we can see because half the time we don't have the minimum manpower to roll off the COP. Closing/consolidating COPs is usually not the answer as most of them are set up to protect to protect/prop up the local government/ANSF. More ODAs will help, provided they get the support for what they seem to be doing---running around like Rangers with beards. You need either conventional or HN security forces to fill in and capitalize on the gains that knocking out a certain target gives you. YMMV, this is based mainly on P2K and a little bit of RC South.

[RancidSumo]

I think you are reading WAY too much into this. It is a high school debate topic so I have to argue both sides so don't worry about my opinion. Read the question literally and just give me your opinion. Do you think that following Obama's plan to add 30,000 troops to Afghanistan for 18 months before we began withdrawal is in the best interests of the United States (whatever YOU determine those interests to be)?

I will edit out the underline though.

[Business_Casual]

I've been wondering if the delay in making a decision to increase troops in Afghanistan gave AQ a window to relocate outside the theatre.

M_P

[RancidSumo]

Interesting thought. We (my partner and I) have been arguing on the con side of this resolution that there is no point to increasing the number of troops since terrorism will continue no matter what we do so we should increase the amount of effort/money spent on defensive measures instead.

[Business_Casual]

You will not win that argument. For example, I could get on a plane every day for a year with a pistol in my pocket and it wouldn't make a difference. The plane would arrive at its destination because I am not a terrorist. So the theory of "prevention" or "prohibition" is flawed at its root. Because things don't do things, people do things. Unless you stop the people you will not stop the threat.

The Israelis understand this and the world hates them for it. We are too cowardly and invested in political correctness to do the sort of "stepping on toes" that is required.

Further, if you declare you are leaving in 18 months, what is the action of the reasonable man? He simply waits 18 months and one day. It is stupid to declare your strategy in advance of implementing it.

M_P

[RancidSumo]

Ok, so if the Obama plan is not the answer and neither is investing in domestic security then what do you recommend to reduce terrorism?

Just so we are clear, I am not necessarily disagreeing with anyone in this thread, I just need to see the pros and cons of all sides. Like I said, my opinion doesn't really matter here.

[parishioner]

Right now, Im kind of feeling like we either need to pull out completely or we need to send every last troop, plane, and bomb until they are exterminated. But even that would be difficult because they just scurry on over to Pakistan. This war is unlike anything we have dealt with so I honestly can't even say what we should do. The enemy has no uniforms and the lines are less clear than previous wars. One minute they are herding goats acting innocent and the next they have an AK in their hand. They are doing things unconventionally, and I think we need to to be unconventional right back.

I believe the way the media is in its current state, it is extremely difficult to win a war. During WWII we kicked ass because the entire country was behind the effort, working hard and doing their part to support the cause. We firebombed Japanese cities and yes civilians were killed. It was sad and nobody was proud of that but it was necessary to win. Like that quote "At the end of war, there are no winners or losers. Only the living and the dead."

Today, our country is forced to hear about every explosion, every firefight, and every reported death. Not only are U.S. soldier deaths reported, but civilian deaths also. Never before have we had more precision fire in effort to reduce collateral damage but nevertheless the media manages to makes us look like we are a bunch of reckless baby killers. We as a country have to deal with this type of news on a daily basis and for the commoner, it wears on the mind and everyone gets sick and tired of the death and killing fairly quickly. So now that we are all sick of it, we are not behind it, no longer support it and because of this we are having a hard time taking care of business.

A lot of people nowadays get hung up on the "why" of the war and what the reasons are for it. I honestly don't give a shit why they want to kill us. All I see is the fact that they threaten our way of life that so many Americans have worked for and died for and they should pay...dearly for it.

I think if the media would get the hell out of the military's way and allow them to do the job that 95% of the country is too afraid to do, things would go more smoothly.

I'm not sure if I answered your question. I sort of just commented on how I feel about the current state of things

By the way, you shouldn't put too much stock into anyone's opinion on this if they haven't seen firsthand what is really going on over there, including mine. :)

[RancidSumo]

Thanks. That is exactly what I am looking for, the opinions of all the knowledgeable people here and even if you don't consider yourself one of them, your input is still valuable.

[Mjolnir]

We are trying to "pacify" nations and tribes within nations. Some aren't willing to accept our terms and thus they are targeted. Their religion means more to them than ours does to us and despite what the NWO desires they are willing to fight to the last man, apparently. Honorable, but not survivable.

The proper question should be why are we there and why did it take so long to go there in force if the goal was to eradicate Al Qaeda (we were told they were in Aghanistan; Hell, we knew that's where they were since we greatly assisted them in their decade-long war with the former USSR).

No one studies Geopolitics, apparently, and when they do they usually do not like what they uncover so they simply dismiss it. So be it.

Follow the money, follow Bridas, follow Unocal, follow Chevron, unfortunately. And if all of that sounds unreal then go pick up Sun Tzu's Art of War and Machiavelli's The Prince. The goal is to wage war by deception.

Obviously, one can argue both sides and come up with some validity with each side. It should be easy. For example, I could argue that thirty thousand is not enough; we should have had 100,000 there instead of in Iraq from day one; that 30,000 additional soldiers NINE years later will be of limited effect. It will probably take a lot more and much longer than 18 months. But that's not what the public (particularly those who are concerned about such things) want to hear.

[rifleman2000]

A counter-insurgency is about establishing legitimacy and demonstrating resolve and will to continue the fight.

Afghanistan is winnable, I have no doubt in my mind. I spent a year there, and that has re-inforced this idea.

Bottom line is this:

If Obama got on TV and said "We are going to go to Afghanistan and hunt down every son-of-a-bitch that bears arms against us and our allies and stay till the job is done!" and meant it and then sent NO more troops then already there...

He will have done a lot more for the war then telling the Taliban we are leaving; after which no amount of troops will win the war. The Taliban know how long they need to hang on for, thus giving them HOPE (ironic, isn't it?). Thanks Barry.

Barry lost us the war because he is a pussy and the whole world knows it. The United States has no resolve at the top level, and no guts to finish the war. Terrorists will get their safe havens back.

[RancidSumo]

Thanks to both if the last two posters. Mjolnir, I think I follow what you are saying but could you please be a bit more specific on what it is you think I should look into? I would like to research the big picture and will in time but that is one thing I am a bit short on.

rifleman2000, thanks especially for the "hope" reference. That has the potential for a great closing argument on the con side.

[Armati]

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu

Just what is our 'strategy' in Afghanistan? Sending more troops is not a stratagem. At the moment we are just making noise, blunting our steel, losing blood and treasure, and waiting for our inevitable ignominious withdrawal.

[Mjolnir]

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu

Just what is our 'strategy' in Afghanistan? Sending more troops is not a stratagem. At the moment we are just making noise, blunting our steel, losing blood and treasure, and waiting for our inevitable ignominious withdrawal.

Correct. And it is this type of reasoning and logic that befuddles me. YOU know Sun Tzu as do I. So should our military planners. Did anyone catch this over the holidays:

Army Major General Michael Flynn, the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence in Afghanistan, released a report in which he labeled military intelligence in the war zone - but by implication US intelligence operatives generally - as "clueless". They were, he wrote, "ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced ... and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers... Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the US intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy." :confused: :mad:

It really makes me wonder is a cabal somewhere wanting us to lose everything (i.e., our nation's best, money and materiel and national standing)???

If the man is incorrect he should step down or be brought down, immediately. If he's correct then heads should roll, asap.

[RancidSumo]

Mjolnir, do you have a source for that? It could be a very helpful article.

Armati, thanks for the Sun Tzu quote, I plan on putting that in my con case.

[Armati]

Actually, I don't think Sun Tzu is studied much at all by Western planers nor by most officers. It is a lot like how most soldiers do really know how to handle their weapons or know combatives.

I think you will find that most people who do study Sun Tzu tend to fancy themselves as some sort of warrior-intellectual.

[RancidSumo]

What translation of Sun Tzu do you guys recommend?

[Business_Casual]

What translation of Sun Tzu do you guys recommend?

The cheapest one.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=4&oq=Sun+Tzu&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___US360&q=sun+tzu+art+of+war+pdf

M_P

[Mjolnir]

Mjolnir, do you have a source for that? It could be a very helpful article.

Armati, thanks for the Sun Tzu quote, I plan on putting that in my con case.

The source is here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA12Df01.html

I also read http://www.globalresearch.ca

Both provide alternative views to the mainstream press and they are not 100% correct - but then what/who is. But I read all mainstream media as well as these and other articles in Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com and the Journal for International Security Affairs http://www.securityaffairs.org/ and the Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org

[Macx]

My opinion -

Our best answer would be to withdraw troops. Scrap NASA and get our scientists to SERIOUS work abotu renewable resources with particular focus on plant based fuels and lubricants. SERIOUS R&D work on shifting all diesel and petrol engines over to plant based fuel and lube. We should not stop until it is more expensive to draw oil out of the ground than the price it will sell for. Forget farm subsidies, put America's farmers back to work full throttle. Take away the source of funds that fund terrorism . . . . No army fights on an empty stomach (for very long). We could defeat them (terrorist) with science. Moreover we could help our economy while defeating our enemies, win, win. I think the Soviet Union proved that going about Afganistan the way we have been is . . .. not the best way forward. What are the primary differences between U.S. activity in that region now and Soviet activity then? How did that work out for them? Why do we expect different results?

This is a criticism of the policy makers, not the people following orders.

[Business_Casual]

Well, for one thing, we don't execute the entire family out of hand against the nearest brick wall, when we find an IED. Which was something the Soviets were prone to doing.

Speak very, very carefully when comparing our soldiers and our allied soldiers to the actions of the Soviet Union. There is a lot you apparently don't know about either. I guess there are too many cute girls walking around with the hammer and sickle on their t-shirts for people to remember that the Soviets were brutal thugs that tortured prisoners, executed people without trial, used family members including children as political pawns and ran a vast, secret prison system for people who did things like speaking their minds.

M_P

[CarlosDJackal]

Is President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest?

My Response:

As someone who will probably be directly affected by this decision within the next year or two, here is my opinion on the matter:.

On the surface increasing troop levels seems to be a good thing. This is further reinforced by the outcome of surge in Iraq (which most of the "obamites" opposed and still do). If applied in the correct manner, it can work in A-stan. "Correct Manner" is the operative word.

During the former Soviet Union's foray into that region, their troop levels peaked to over 100,000 along with thousands of tanks, AFVs, and other materiel necessary to support such an effort. Add to that are the thousands of Afghan Army units loyal to the Soviet-backed government. As we now know, they were beaten regardless of their numbers and logistic might.

Von Clausewitz published "On War" where he identified the following Principles of War: Mass, Objective, Security, Simplicity, Maneuver, Offensive, Unity of Command, Surprise, and Economy of Force (MOSS MOUSE). IMHO, the most applicable for this situation is "Economy of Force". Throwing more bodies into the fray will not necessarily result in victory if those bodies are not used to our best advantage tactically and strategically.

As far as the announced withdrawal time table. That has got to be one of the dumbest "ideas" that demoKrats have come up with. And I know why they do it - it's to keep their own people (anti-war/anti-military liberals) quiet. Unfortunately for those of us in uniform, it also provides the enemy with a timetable based on which they can plan their operations.

If I were an insurgent commander and I heard that there was going to be a build-up starting on Jan 2010 and a gradual draw down starting in June 2011; I would plan on building up my forces so that we can intensify operations starting July 2011!! Any moron can see this.

This is akin to the City Mayor announcing that there will be an increased Police presence in a certain neighbor hood which will end on June 2011!! Just how well this worked in the Chicago Projects back in the 1970s when the IL Governor stayed at one to show just how "safe" it was? Gangs moved right back in as soon as the Governor's Security left.

Democratic Administrations have a habit of micro-managing Military Operations (IE: Somalia during the Clinton Administration, RE: Task Force Ranger; LBJ during the Vietnam War, etc.). We shall see if they try to run the war in A-stan in the same manner. IMHO, this will be the primary determinant if the build-up of troops will make much of a difference or not.

Good luck on your debate.

[Macx]

Well, for one thing, we don't execute the entire family out of hand against the nearest brick wall, when we find an IED. Which was something the Soviets were prone to doing.

Speak very, very carefully when comparing our soldiers and our allied soldiers to the actions of the Soviet Union. There is a lot you apparently don't know about either. I guess there are too many cute girls walking around with the hammer and sickle on their t-shirts for people to remember that the Soviets were brutal thugs that tortured prisoners, executed people without trial, used family members including children as political pawns and ran a vast, secret prison system for people who did things like speaking their minds.

M_P

Um, no. Quite the opposite. IF the brutal, no punches pulled tactics of the Soviets didn't beat the Afgans into submission, what chance do you think "softcore" war has? If you tie soldiers hands, with humane and even unreasonably kind rules of engagement . . . what chance in HADES do you think they stand of beating an enemy that wasn't beaten by . .. .the very thuggery you so kindly point out. I wish there were more cute girls in T-shirts walking around. .. . and I wouldn't even care about the logos . .. .but it is FREEZING up here in America's own Siberia . .. so trolls in parkas are all I see walking around.;)

[John_Wayne777]

Um, no. Quite the opposite. IF the brutal, no punches pulled tactics of the Soviets didn't beat the Afgans into submission, what chance do you think "softcore" war has? If you tie soldiers hands, with humane and even unreasonably kind rules of engagement . . . what chance in HADES do you think they stand of beating an enemy that wasn't beaten by . .. .the very thuggery you so kindly point out.

...so you're arguing that the Soviets lost Afghanistan because they weren't brutal enough? Didn't kill enough people?

I'm certainly not an expert in counter-insurgency...but it doesn't seem like you're familiar with the concept.

[Macx]

I am arguing that this isn't a "stand up" war against uniformed soldiers fighting according to any international conventions of war. The Soviets applied military force as if their enemy was. It didn't work. I have doubts about the efficacy of sending more U.S. troops to "kill them with kindness". It is a lovely Christian ideal, I just don't have much confidence in it as a way to "win" a war.

I'd much rather see Obama Youth mobilized, say 30,000 young democrats, shipped over to spread the gospel with political tracts instead of sending honorable men and women with their oaths to the Constitution and their guns. Counter-insurgency hasn't worked as well as we'd like. Time to try something different.

[NinjaTactics]

I would argue that it's actually a terrible idea for an increased troop surge. When you talk about 30,000 more troops, that's only the military, and not counting 'private military/security contractors' (PMCs/PSCs). The number of PMCs/PSCs is about a 1:1 ratio in Iraq, and this trend would probably continue in Afghanistan. For a country choking on it's own debt, the USA doesn't need to be taking on more debt to finance a war that won't really accomplish much.

Our own intelligenge agencies were laughing when they were able to lure the USSR into Afghanistan 30 years ago, because they knew it would bankrupt them and be a losing proposition.

I wonder if the Soviets are laughing now that we are doing the same thing to ourselves. It's still not a winning proposition.

[Submariner]

What translation of Sun Tzu do you guys recommend?

Brig. Gen. Samuel B. Griffith, USMC (ret.) wrote, in my view, the most usable translation as he wrote it with insight as a professional soldier.


Ok, so if the Obama plan is not the answer and neither is investing in domestic security then what do you recommend to reduce terrorism?

Terrorism requires money. Lots of it. We live in a digital age where flows of funds can be monitored, if governments choose to monitor them. Follow their money back to the banks and donors. Shut down the banks and neutralize their donors, e.g. sequester their assets, kill them, whatever.

Just like we did with the folks who shorted airlines and insurance companies on 9/11.

[glocktogo]

I'm of the all or nothing camp. To me, there's nothing more inhumane than limited warfare. It gives the enemy hope, leaves the indigenous non-combatants confused as to who will win, and leaves our troops exposed to asymmetrical warfare on all fronts.

Our strengths match up poorly to their weaknesses. We're awesome at destroying the enemies infrastructure, of which they have none. They have local knowledge of every nook and cranny and they know where they're supported and where they're not. The physical and political geography of the area give them a tactical advantage.

Further compounding the issue in A-stan is the disarray of the local political, military and law enforcement establishments, social and economic hardships, and a divided population regarding which side they'd prefer to see in power.

On the home front you have a waffling political situation, a press hostile to the war effort and a citizenry with the collective attention span of a gnat. Worse yet, we have a history of leaving our local supporters hanging high & dry (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Dessert Storm).

The enemy in this case is fully aware of these realities and they're using them to their advantage. All we have to offer the locals is getting rid of the Taliban, and not all of them want the Taliban gone. In many cases the Taliban and the local warlords provide a more stable legal and political system than our allies there do.

Option 1: In order to conquer an enemy, you have to vanquish is ability to wage war, occupy his territory and demoralize him to the point of surrender. At that point you can establish a sustainable peace and reestablish an infrastructure that reinvigorates the community and the economy.

Option 2: If the enemy is so hostile to the local population that you can win overwhelming support in rooting them out, you can enter with a dominating force, join forces with the local population and drive out or destroy the enemy. I do not mean join forces with the government, but the population itself.

Option 3: If the enemy has popular support and you can't bring them to their knees in surrender, you can wage asymmetrical warfare against them to destabilize their hold on the region and negate their ability to bring the fight to your doorstep.

So far we've failed to accomplish option 1 when we invaded A-stan. Since then we've tried to exercise a vague and muddled combination of options 2 & 3. Our only success has been in neutralizing their ability to export the fight to us outside A-stan. This could have been accomplished with a much smaller covert force on the ground. We don't have the full support of the local population, so option 2 isn't viable currently.

While a surge will undoubtedly further put the enemy combatants on the run, it will never eliminate them. Locals will still be drawn to their aide and replenish their ranks. The best a surge can do is suppress and simultaneously prolong the fighting. When we leave the Taliban will regain their status in the region and any locals who supported us will have a tough life under their scrutiny.

I'm not saying I don't support the surge, but we still have no cohesive plan for victory. I'm not even sure more than a declared victory can be achieved there.

[Macx]

Dude, you just said masterfully in one shot what I did a piss poor job of saying over several posts. Thanks for saying the right thing well.

[RancidSumo]

Have any of you been involved in the training of Afghan soldiers/police? If so, how did that go?

[Armati]

Around my shop, the more seasoned realists simply say "Tell me how this ends."

Honestly, how does this thing end? Again and again, there is NO clear mission end state to our problems in the Af-Pak region. Much less, there is NO clear national strategy to deal with Islamic Terrorism.

Truly, it is sad to see all of this blood and treasure being wasted on a lost cause. A few weeks ago I went to a guys funeral at Arlington. He was KIA in Afghanistan. His mother was in tears and could barely stand without help. And whenever I go to one of these, I have to ask just what did he die for?

Freedom? Better flush out your headgear new guy...