What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan?

[STURM]

Sorry brain fart. Intended to ask for 'another source on the current Saudi role' on this rather than 'a source on the Saudi role', which was already kindly provided by you. It's just my natural curiosity on how the link or line of influence works and to see if there are more perspectives on the nature of that influence.

This angle on how the Saudis can contribute needs to be understood and if valuable, pursued.

No worries. I was only tying to be helpful and no way intended to contradict you Like you, I've never been to Afghanistan. The only sources I have are from books/magazines and from relatives in India who were originally from Afghanistan.

My sympthaties are for the Afghan civilians who are struggling to make ends meet and hopefully be able to live with their families in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. Most U.S./coalition soldiers who get killed at least are mentioned by name in the press but the not the Afghan farmer who gets blown up with his family as a result of a targeting error, bad intel or simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm am very annoyed however, about the role the Saudis have played in the past in stoking the flames of wahhabism and contributing to the current mess in Afghanistan.

 

[AfghanAmbush]

Lets have a intelligent discussions here guys, keep your egos out of it and use logic and reason. I'll be posting more on this subject soon, bit busy with school right now. Here is a link for those who think the U.S shouldn't negotiate with them, this is why you should be informed before posting. They tried talking to them but it failed, some of the reasons were that AQ is mixed within, Taliban don't want the foreigners and the ISI wants to be included in the talks (hence: capture of Mullah Berader)

BBC News - US commander signals peace talks with Taliban

 

[OPSSG]

Fundamentally, Afghanistan relies quite a bit on external aid, which also happens to be given by richer countries, many who are contributing troops for the coalition. In 2007, a company from China won the bid for copper rights Afghanistan (with deposits worth US$88 billion) and their investment is contributing to the coffers of the Afghan government - and this Chinese investment alone provides 45% of state budget and will also provide many jobs. This in turn partially funds the ANA and ANP aiding the Afghan government's fight against Taliban forces. Therefore it is in China's interest to see the current Afghan government succeed, as this will protect China's investment there. This also aligns China's interest with coalition aims. IMO, I've provided a bit of evidence to show that it is wrong for umair655 to suggest that China supports the Taliban.

My sympathies are for the Afghan civilians who are struggling to make ends meet and hopefully be able to live with their families in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.

According to UNICEF statistics, the average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years and the adult literacy rate is on 28%. The country, if we can call it that, is ranked NUMBER 1 in for under-5 infant mortality rate. It would be fair to say that the suffering of the Afghan people is immense. The Taliban and their brutish ways are not the way forward. When the Taliban were in power, in the past, they attempted to take their people back to the stone age - killing all those who opposed them. IMO, the Taliban have in the past and are currently inflicting far more suffering and death on their own countrymen than the coalition forces.

 

[stoker]

Fundamentally, Afghanistan relies quite a bit on external aid, which also happens to be given by richer countries, many who are contributing troops for the coalition. In 2007, a company from China won the bid for copper rights Afghanistan (with deposits worth US$88 billion) and their investment is contributing to the coffers of the Afghan government - and this Chinese investment alone provides 45% of state budget and will also provide many jobs. This in turn partially funds the ANA and ANP aiding the Afghan government's fight against Taliban forces. Therefore it is in China's interest to see the current Afghan government succeed, as this will protect China's investment there. This also aligns China's interest with coalition aims. IMO, I've provided a bit of evidence to show that it is wrong for umair655 to suggest that China supports the Taliban.



According to UNICEF statistics, the average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years and the adult literacy rate is on 28%. The country, if we can call it that, is ranked NUMBER 1 in for under-5 infant mortality rate. It would be fair to say that the suffering of the Afghan people is immense. The Taliban and their brutish ways are not the way forward. When the Taliban were in power, in the past, they attempted to take their people back to the stone age - killing all those who opposed them. IMO, the Taliban have in the past and are currently inflicting far more suffering and death on their own countrymen than the coalition forces.

The U.N. mission in Afghanistan said 2,412 civilians were killed in 2009 — a 14 percent increase over the 2,118 who died in 2008. Another 3,566 civilians were wounded.

Nearly 70 percent of the killings, or 1,630, were blamed on insurgents while 25 percent, or 596, were attributed to pro-government forces, the report said. The remaining 135 deaths could not be attributed to either side but were civilians caught in the crossfire or killed by unexploded ordnance.

The Taliban are very media savvy, and any US/Nato military caused Afghan civilian deaths are well exploited, however their own atrocities against Afghan civilians, and destruction of local infrastructure ( such as schools ) must engender much hatred against them.

The Taliban are basically Pushtan Afghans, they comprise of roughly 40% of the population, the President also is a Pushtan, and so were the last lot of the royal family, so basically not only are the Taliban 'on a misssion from Allah' they also believe they have a right to rule.

I imagine many of the other Afghan don't take kindly to this.

But at the end of the day the US/Nato/Afghan army can win all the fights, but, to win the War they will have to win the trust of the Afghan population.

They will have to provide security and safety, build local infrastructure and provide jobs for young afghans, and most important in rural areas good roads and water/ electricity supplies. AND eliminate/control government corruption. LOL

After that it will be a easy, peace will reign and we can all go home.

 

[Herodotus]

The U.N. mission in Afghanistan said 2,412 civilians were killed in 2009 — a 14 percent increase over the 2,118 who died in 2008. Another 3,566 civilians were wounded.

Nearly 70 percent of the killings, or 1,630, were blamed on insurgents while 25 percent, or 596, were attributed to pro-government forces, the report said. The remaining 135 deaths could not be attributed to either side but were civilians caught in the crossfire or killed by unexploded ordnance.

The Taliban are very media savvy, and any US/Nato military caused Afghan civilian deaths are well exploited, however their own atrocities against Afghan civilians, and destruction of local infrastructure ( such as schools ) must engender much hatred against them.

The Taliban are basically Pushtan Afghans, they comprise of roughly 40% of the population, the President also is a Pushtan, and so were the last lot of the royal family, so basically not only are the Taliban 'on a misssion from Allah' they also believe they have a right to rule.

I imagine many of the other Afghan don't take kindly to this.

But at the end of the day the US/Nato/Afghan army can win all the fights, but, to win the War they will have to win the trust of the Afghan population.

They will have to provide security and safety, build local infrastructure and provide jobs for young afghans, and most important in rural areas good roads and water/ electricity supplies. AND eliminate/control government corruption. LOL

After that it will be a easy, peace will reign and we can all go home.

I find it highly unlikely that peace will reign or "we can all go home" in Afghanistan, even if your mostly improbable scenarios come to fruition. Afghanistan is what Buzan, (within Regional Security Complex Theory) defines as an insulator. A state that is situated between different regional security complexes, but not specifically in any of them. It straddles the South Asia Regional Security Complex, the Middle East Complex, and the (former) Soviet Region, not to mention the East Asia Security Complex is nearby.

What that means is that Afghanistan sits at the nexus of Russia, (1), China, (2), India, (3), Iran (1a), Pakistan, (2b), -three Great Powers and two regional powers together with the United States, which has a vested interest in the region, (or at least forced its way into the region, thus entitling it to interests). This is why Afghanistan is important, not necessarily because terrorism has, and may in the future, spawn from there (terrorism is an asymmetrical threat that does not kill many people...historically), but because of its geography.

Thus even if the Taliban surrender tomorrow, and bin Laden comes out of his cave and surrenders and denounces jihad, and even if democracy springs up and the University of Kabul becomes the Asian equivalent of Harvard and opium farmers become landed gentry, there will probably always be a need to keep a presence in Afghanistan by at least one of these powers due to the convergence of interests there. And if there is one state with a "presence", there's bound to be others. So don't count on the US leaving anytime in the next few years or so.

 

[OPSSG]

@Herodotus,

^You have shared an interesting perspective that takes into account the geopolitical context of the conflict. Need to mull over your post a bit.

BTW, are you saying the the US will never pull out or that as a Superpower, they would want to continue to be involved in some shape, manner or form? Please explain, I'm all ears.

 

[agc33e]

For afganistan or for irak it might help:
-many many soldiers for making a true frontier between countries and frontiers in a perimeter round each city, then many many soldiers for inspecting all cities deeply, fire weapons are forbiden, and each city is fully inspectionated, you need so many solciers from all the world to inspect all the houses, the ceilings, the drains, etc, no fire weapons no dinamite, to get dinamite to the cities they to get into the country first, and after get it into the frontier of the city..
-a good propaganda, in arab, talking about the rights gained, talking that god, allah,is with us, with the international coalition.
-a good system for rebuilding the country, a type of self feed (in foods) comunities that each town can have an autonomous wellness, with enough landi for crops, water for the fields, so they can work in the fields and have all the food ensured, give a present to them in shape of tv better comms for the country, better electricity etc...i can say more complete things.

-for the explosives in the roads, isnt there enought technology to scan the inmediate land and detect explosive materials hidden?

Cheers.

 

[STURM]

IWhat that means is that Afghanistan sits at the nexus of Russia, (1), China, (2), India, (3), Iran (1a), Pakistan, (2b), -three Great Powers and two regional powers together with the United States, which has a vested interest in the region, (or at least forced its way into the region, thus entitling it to interests). This is why Afghanistan is important, not necessarily because terrorism has, and may in the future, spawn from there (terrorism is an asymmetrical threat that does not kill many people...historically), but because of its geography

Its been said before, Afghanistan's greatest curse is its geography. What's happening now in Afghanistan and in other parts of Central Asia has been described as the new Great Game as the current situation has many parallels to the first Great Game, involving Tarist Russia and Great Britain.

 

[Feanor]

Central Asia in particular, with China, Russia, and the US. Esp. the endless rotation of removal, and re-admittance of NATO bases into those countries. But it certainly applies to Afghanistan. And Russia certainly maintains a close by presence, in Tadjikistan. So while not directly involved, there are assets devoted to limiting spill over effects.

 

[Herodotus]

@Herodotus,

^You have shared an interesting perspective that takes into account the geopolitical context of the conflict. Need to mull over your post a bit.

BTW, are you saying the the US will never pull out or that as a Superpower, they would want to continue to be involved in some shape, manner or form? Please explain, I'm all ears.

I would be surprised if the US did not at least keep some physical presence beyond a diplomatic one in that country-intel assets at least, or an air base, or Special Forces, etc . Because if they don't another country probably will. The opportunity is too great to pass on. The size of the presence may be dependent on the level of violence, and how much the local government protests, and how much domestic opposition there is, but I fully expect a decades-long commitment.

 

[Herodotus]

Its been said before, Afghanistan's greatest curse is its geography. What's happening now in Afghanistan and in other parts of Central Asia has been described as the new Great Game as the current situation has many parallels to the first Great Game, involving Tarist Russia and Great Britain.

No doubt, except this time there are more players involved and more variables are included: nuclear weapons, oil, power positioning, etc.

 

[Ray17]

The strategy to win in Afghanistan is to 'seal' the frontier with Pakistan by physically deploying troops. So long as the Taliban can carry out forays or send reinforcement from Pakistan, there can be no win. Yet, it is also necessary to remember that there can be no airtight sealing and the Taliban from Pakistan will continue to filter in, but the numbers would be much less.

Thereafter, it is essential to have troops who will eliminate the Taliban who have 'filtered in' as also those who are operating in the countryside.

Lastly, there has to be troops who will sanitise the urban areas.

A huge task and a lot of troops would be required.

JMT

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The strategy to win in Afghanistan is to 'seal' the frontier with Pakistan by physically deploying troops. So long as the Taliban can carry out forays or send reinforcement from Pakistan, there can be no win. Yet, it is also necessary to remember that there can be no airtight sealing and the Taliban from Pakistan will continue to filter in, but the numbers would be much less.

Thereafter, it is essential to have troops who will eliminate the Taliban who have 'filtered in' as also those who are operating in the countryside.

Lastly, there has to be troops who will sanitise the urban areas.

A huge task and a lot of troops would be required.

JMT

Hell of a lot easier said than done. That is one of the most porous borders in the region in the world for a very very good reason. Its rugged, remote, mountainous, and hard to travel in.

As Eisenhower said, "farming looks mighty easy when you're two thousand miles away from the cornfield and your pencil is your plow."

Plugging the border with conventional troops isn't an option. You have to have an FOB on every mountain, you'd have to supply the FOBs, etc. etc. Use roving special forces teams, OPs, QRFs and UAVs to patrol the border and respond with overwhelming force to overwhelm any Taliban forces they spot crossing the border.

 

[STURM]

Because if they don't another country probably will. The opportunity is too great to pass on.

That country could well end up being India, with U.S. approval. As long as the Kashmir problem and other issues with Pakistan remain unresolved, India will countinue to expand it's influence in Afghanistan. One of the reasons, prior to 9/11 the Pakistanis were against Ahmad Shah Massoud was because he received aid from India.

 

[Ray17]

Hell of a lot easier said than done. That is one of the most porous borders in the region in the world for a very very good reason. Its rugged, remote, mountainous, and hard to travel in.

As Eisenhower said, "farming looks mighty easy when you're two thousand miles away from the cornfield and your pencil is your plow."

Plugging the border with conventional troops isn't an option. You have to have an FOB on every mountain, you'd have to supply the FOBs, etc. etc. Use roving special forces teams, OPs, QRFs and UAVs to patrol the border and respond with overwhelming force to overwhelm any Taliban forces they spot crossing the border.

Currently, India is doing just that in Kashmir and with far less technology than the ISAF or having the advantage that the US has wherein, the US can at will extend the operations beyond the Durand Line and take on the Taliban on Pakistani soil. Also the US will not have the disadvantage that India has wherein owing to political reasons, India does not use the Airforce (except transporter), missiles, Combat UAVs, artillery or armour etc to take on the terrorists in Kashmir

While terrorism in Kashmir continues, yet it has been to a great extent brought under control.

India has forces on border manning posts that are tactically sited running all the way from the Chamb in the South and northward to Punch, on the Pir Panjal mountains to Uri and onto Tangdhar and then easterly to Gurez and thereafter to Kargil, Leh and Siachen. To do this, has four Divisions and a Brigade. The rural areas are manned by Army Rashtriya Rifles and paramilitary (BSF). Towns are guarded by police forces.

I am sure the US and ISAF with better technology, weapons, surveillance means, air, helicopters, gunship, artillery, armour, Special Ops troops and so on, can control terrorism. However, the moot point is that troops unless in abundance will find it difficult and that is what is the real chink in the armour.

The US has controlled terrorism in Iraq, and even though remnants of terrorism are making things difficult at time, the situation is better and the Iraqi government functioning.

 

[Ray17]

That country could well end up being India, with U.S. approval. As long as the Kashmir problem and other issues with Pakistan remain unresolved, India will countinue to expand it's influence in Afghanistan. One of the reasons, prior to 9/11 the Pakistanis were against Ahmad Shah Massoud was because he received aid from India.

AFGHANISTAN: INDIA'S CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR "THE DAY AFTER"

This paper indicates India's options.

 

[Feanor]

Currently, India is doing just that in Kashmir and with far less technology than the ISAF or having the advantage that the US has wherein, the US can at will extend the operations beyond the Durand Line and take on the Taliban on Pakistani soil. Also the US will not have the disadvantage that India has wherein owing to political reasons, India does not use the Airforce (except transporter), missiles, Combat UAVs, artillery or armour etc to take on the terrorists in Kashmir

While terrorism in Kashmir continues, yet it has been to a great extent brought under control.

India has forces on border manning posts that are tactically sited running all the way from the Chamb in the South and northward to Punch, on the Pir Panjal mountains to Uri and onto Tangdhar and then easterly to Gurez and thereafter to Kargil, Leh and Siachen. To do this, has four Divisions and a Brigade. The rural areas are manned by Army Rashtriya Rifles and paramilitary (BSF). Towns are guarded by police forces.

I am sure the US and ISAF with better technology, weapons, surveillance means, air, helicopters, gunship, artillery, armour, Special Ops troops and so on, can control terrorism. However, the moot point is that troops unless in abundance will find it difficult and that is what is the real chink in the armour.

The US has controlled terrorism in Iraq, and even though remnants of terrorism are making things difficult at time, the situation is better and the Iraqi government functioning.

I completely agree. One of the simplest ways of dealing with the problem is simply by putting enough boots on the ground to put an end to Taliban's ability to operate.

 

[Ray17]

I believe Afghanistan has a 2500 km border with Pakistan.

That will mean an immense amount of troops manning posts.

One wonders if it is feasible.

However, all efforts must be made to contain the international threat of terrorism.

I accept that it is easier said than done!

 

[STURM]

I completely agree. One of the simplest ways of dealing with the problem is simply by putting enough boots on the ground to put an end to Taliban's ability to operate.

Equally important as putting enough boots on the ground are the long term social and economic programmes run by the coalition aimed at winning support and having a government in Kabul that is acceptable to all the ethnic groups. As long as part of the population continue to support the Talibs and have the mindset that they are fighting a foreign occupation, IMO pouring more troops in is not the only answer. Other problems apart form the safe haven in Pakistan and the support from the 'jihadist' elements in the Pakistani military, is the financial aid reaching the Taliban from wealthy individuals and organisations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Equally important as putting enough boots on the ground are the long term social and economic programmes run by the coalition aimed at winning support and having a government in Kabul that is acceptable to all the ethnic groups. As long as part of the population continue to support the Talibs and have the mindset that they are fighting a foreign occupation, IMO pouring more troops in is not the only answer. Other problems apart form the safe haven in Pakistan and the support from the 'jihadist' elements in the Pakistani military, is the financial aid reaching the Taliban from wealthy individuals and organisations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Great stuff Feanor, Ray, Sturm, Herodotus. You've all got excellent points.

I'm in total agreement that having "boots on the ground" is key and that technology can only supplement, rather than supplant that. There's not much point in having a force multiplier if you don't have a meaningful force to multiply.

The challenge is to have an effective military force in-country, decapitate, disintegrate and defeat the Taliban, and provide for Afghanistan's future economic, political, and social stability. All this without neglecting the crucial civil and tribal aspects and understanding and adapting to the interactions between the social, military, and politic aspects of the War.