Afghanistan Strategy Discussion - Online Now!

[grosnain]

I should use preview before sending, sorry for errors on previous post.

Terrorism is not dangerous it cost less kills than car crash or home accidents. Uk was not in danger in 70's against I.R.A and life goes on in Spain despite E.T.A actions. It's a question of will, intelligence with undercover agents (we do it well in France ) and DILPLOMACY.
I always laugh at people who are afraid with bombs in planes and such things because the probability to be in is smaller than to win in a Vegas casino or dying because of junk food or polution.

[Galland]

..its all perception mon amie, all perception..!

[AThousandYoung]

Originally Posted by grosnain

A attribute for structured debate :
1 Do U.S Army can win the ground battle for the valleys with more troops?
2 Does it cost to much manpower ?
3 Does it cost to much money?
4 What about pakistan border uncontrolled areas ?
5 What about Vietnam learned experiences, and others (fallujah succes, somaly errors, last weaks guerillas (sri lanka, colombia ...)?

For my part i think that there is no military danger for NATO in Afganistan, and responses are politics.

I think Obama should pour troops into Afghanistan, recommend a cautious strategy for the military leaders while he figures out what's going on, invest in the CIA and let them go to town gathering info (while being careful to remember not to put TOO much stock into what they say - remember WMDs in Iraq?).

Then, the man needs to CLEARLY DEFINE his objectives so that he can say "we won" without lying or even ambiguity. Objectives like "a permanent democracy" take infinite time to see if they have been met, so are useless. He should NOT blow off the advice of his military advisors.

[Armchair General]

Strategist Ralph Peters and operations and intelligence analyst John Sutherland debate what the best strategy is for the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan - an Armchair General exclusive.


More...

Feed Source
___________
http://www.armchairgeneral.com
Great History * Strategy * Leadership * Games

[Siberian HEAT]

The article is now posted online!

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/what-...ons-debate.htm

[General Staff]

I'd go with Ralph Peters' approach.

Iraq and Afghanistan are very different countries, both in terms of culture/education and terrain.

I'm very sceptical of the 'surge' approach, because if you look at it from the other side all you have have to do is wait them out.

In Afghanistan too, and the population is sick of the endemic corruption and have a 'ca plus ca change' mentality.

In the ultimate analysis- IMO- we have no business in either country, though they- and some Western concerns like Hallliburton for example- are making great business out of it, so just get the hell out.

Let them sort themselves out and if we don't like the product, just make it clear we'll be back for a quick changeover.

[Pappy]

Ralph Peters has a good strategic and scary view over the situation although pessimistic it has historically weight that shows that he is well educated. I’m however very shocked over his immature Mongolian statement of recklessly killing the Taliban, which makes me wonder if he have learnt any thing at all from his historical studies or is it too much computer games.

John Sutherland is more optimistic and has the tactical insight of what’s going on. Unfortunately we know that tactics wins battles but not necessarily wars.

Modern offensive democratisation process in a country lacking infrastructure without involving occupation/colonisation to induce it still needs to studied, if it’s possible to achieve at all.

As before

Always have a clear definition of:

* The goal of operation
* How to achieve it.
* What resources are needed to pull it off.
* How long would it take.
* How to end the operation if it fails.

If one can’t decide or have the clear definition on any of these factors one should not put in ground forces.

I would not place my money on using territorial military forces. What one needs is to earn the peoples respect without these. A science fictional way would be to create a new unit of life dedicated US individuals converted to or already Muslim who stays and lives with in the villages. Befriends them shares there difficulties and worries and becomes one of them (get married, have kids ie not leave after a while). These “Village fathers” will also protect the villages using the village personnel with assistance of special forces and have constant communication with friendly in country forces. They will also tend to that all village needs are fulfilled overtime.

One in every village until the country is pacified. It would take about 20-35 years and if one doesn’t like it one shouldn’t mess with it.

/p

[Golani]

Hi Pappy,
First off I enjoyed reading your post-even if I don't necessarily agree with all of that (and that I think of Avatar when I read it ) , I think you should join the COIN debate here:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=93801

Hasn't a variation of "your" idea was already preformed in Vietnam (CIDG)? how successful was it?

Isn't it what SF are doing there right now?

Is it at all possible?

[MonsterZero]

There is no Afghanistan strategy because there are no Afghanistan objectives.

There is nobody in the United States who can define what such objectives are.

A war on terrorism sounds fine but so does a war on crime being waged right here in Chicago, where the casualties of crime are only growing. Another comparison could be the war on cocaine in Colombia.

I would like to explore the possibility of increasing the coverage of drone patrols, while decreasing the ground troops. Increasing the drone strikes can cause extraordinary damage to the enemy, even if a clearly defined strategy still remains a mystery 10 years from now.

[Golani]

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

I would like to explore the possibility of increasing the coverage of drone patrols, while decreasing the ground troops. .

That's probably the exact opposite of what you want.

Drones only see and hit the ground level, grunts see and hit everything.

[Nickuru]

This was a senseless war, which had no strategy. A fractious and divided country constantly fighting amongst themselves, and therefore battle tested, only unites when faced with foreign invaders. The country is mountainous with steep ravines. You cannot deploy armour here and expect to win. The Soviets found that out.

Invasions of Afghanistan have generally failed, Ask the British Army from 1840s, The USSR armies from 1979 onwards, and the Americans now.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Are you listening George W Bush?