• news
  • FRIDAY JANUARY 9 2009 11:00 AM

Afghanistan: Where Do We Go From Here?

There's a few articles floating around this week that don't paint a pretty picture for the ongoing war in Afghanistan, weeks from a new President being sworn in who promised to shift the military's focus away from Iraq and to the war there.

From The Associated Press:

Army Gen. David Petraeus, who became a household name overseeing the war in Iraq, now oversees the older, smaller and less promising fight in Afghanistan as well. He predicted a long war in Afghanistan, without quantifying it.

Petraeus told a Washington audience that a winning strategy in Afghanistan will look different from the one in Iraq. He offered few specifics as the incoming Obama administration assess its options in the 7-year-old Afghanistan war that has gone much worse than anticipated, just as U.S. fortunes have improved in Iraq. He also suggested the United States and its partners may one day have common purpose with Iran, another Afghanistan neighbor, in stabilizing and remaking that country.



Afghanistan is something of a forgotten war, compared to the causalities of the Iraq war, the causalities of Afghanistan have been relatively light, 561 members of the U.S. military have died. Of that number, 408 have been the victims of enemy action. However, over a quarter of all deaths came last year, there were a 151 deaths in 2008, marking the worst year for military deaths in the seven-year conflict.

Even less encouraging is the release of a new independent study showing that the U.S. had "unrealistic goals" in the Afghan conflict.

The United States and its partners have shortchanged Afghanistan by focusing on short-term goals pursued without a cohesive strategy or a clear understanding of the way the poor, decentralized country works, an independent study concludes.



Without editorializing too much its not a major surprise that the Bush administration ran headlong into something without a cohesive plan, an exit strategy, or a well-articulated end goal. The report stresses something most of us have probably not really considered in these terms:

The Bush administration has had all but eight months of its entire tenure to stabilize Afghanistan...



Which doesn't speak volumes for the two-term Bush Administration, and leaves quite a bit for President Obama to clean up.

It isn't just a matter of increasing violence, the tactics of the Taliban are changing as well, according to the Seattle Times:

Taliban fighters increasingly are deploying precision marksmen to fire on U.S. troops at greater distances throughout opium-producing southern Afghanistan, according to the top two commanders for the southern region.

The increased use of marksmen is the latest Taliban shift to asymmetrical warfare and away from confronting U.S. troops in conventional fights, commanders said.

The expanded use of precision marksmen comes as the fighting shifts from eastern Afghanistan to the south, where the Taliban are trying to protect opium production, which is reputed to be its economic base.

The number of coalition troops killed in southern Afghanistan has increased sharply in the past two months.



Tactics are changing on the ground in Afghanistan, Admr. Michael Mullen, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says:

I think the level of violence in 2008 surprised us all. The sophistication of the tactics of the insurgency surprised us all.



None of which bodes particularly well for the incoming Obama Administration, and the ongoing conflict in Gaza isn't helping much either:

Hundreds of people in southern Afghanistan have burned Israeli flags and shouted anti-Israel and anti-American slogans to protest Israel's military action in Gaza, according to eyewitness accounts from a CNN stringer.



According to to the CIA World Fact Book Afghanistan has a population of about 34 million people, so hundreds of them protesting might not sound like a major issue, but if we're being at all realistic, we have to recognize that Israeli's actions and our continued support of them –– right or wrong –– are stoking a fire in the Muslim world and the eventual backlash could be a terrifying sight to see.

Worse still, it's long been a recognized problem that Al-Qaeda members have been slipping across the border into northern Pakistan, retreating to regroup and rearm before returning to Afghanistan to fight American forces. And the situation there has not been improving as Pakistan fires their national security adviser for arguing that Indian and Pakistan should have closer ties and for allegedly being too "pro-American."

Pakistan's decision to fire its national security adviser has exposed cracks within the shaky, civilian government as it faces growing U.S. and Indian pressure to punish the alleged plotters of the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
...
Political analyst Talat Masood said Durrani's national security appointment was controversial from the start because some considered him too pro-American — so the government may have been looking for a pretext to get rid of him.



In addition to Gen. Petraeus' comments regarding the ongoing battle he adds:

Petraeus linked Afghanistan's fortunes directly to Pakistan's, where a U.S.-backed civilian government is struggling and the country's ability to control militants along its border with Afghanistan is in doubt.



Tensions have risen considerably between India and Pakistan in the wake of the recent attacks in Mumbai. If conflict comes about, one wonders what effect it could have on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan as the U.S. prepares to step up its efforts there. Pakistan has already moved troops from its Afghan border to its Indian border.

The reported movement of troops toward Pakistan's border with India on Friday raised the threat of war between the two nuclear-armed rivals and will distract Pakistan from fighting Taliban-led militants, security analysts said.



The end result of all this is a more porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the population may begin to turn against U.S. forces and the insurgents change tactics to become more effective.

If that were not enough, there's also the big question of where all Afghanistan's heroin is going and how much all this is going to cost.

The future of Afghanistan looks bleak right now, and I offer this as news and not commentary since I have no answers, just a long, ugly list of observations and questions as to where we go from here.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
nicole_powers

nicole_powers

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JAN 09, 2009 11:27 AM



Interesting interview with Bill Clinton –– especially around the 4-min:45-sec mark. If Clinton's hands hadn't been tied by the CIA and the FBI back in the day, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda might have been more of a non-issue today.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JAN 09, 2009 11:44 AM

ChrisSick said:
The end result of all this is a more porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the population may begin to turn against U.S. forces and the insurgents change tactics to become more effective.


it's my understanding that a significant chunk of the Pakistani population is already against us. LeT and its various politically-palatable fronts are fairly popular. plus you've got the ISI who, at best, is playing both sides against the middle.

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

JAN 09, 2009 11:54 AM

It's about damn time.

ARRR!!!

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

JAN 09, 2009 11:56 AM

motorfirebox said:

ChrisSick said:
The end result of all this is a more porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the population may begin to turn against U.S. forces and the insurgents change tactics to become more effective.


it's my understanding that a significant chunk of the Pakistani population is already against us. LeT and its various politically-palatable fronts are fairly popular. plus you've got the ISI who, at best, is playing both sides against the middle.



I was a bit unclear there, I believe I was referring to the Afghan population.

I agree with you regards to the Pakistani population, anyone sitting in the President's chair has to do a bit of a tightrope act to balance pleasing the U.S. and remain an ally in the "War on Terror" while not pissing off his constituents. if I'm not mistaken, former President Musharraf lost a lot of support due to his perceived toadying to the Bush Administration.

Then again, calling Pakistan an ally in the War on Terror with a straight face is itself a bit of tightrope act with the Inter-Services Intelligence agency supporting Lashkar-e-Taiba and the autonomous zones in northern and western Pakistan now the most likely home of bin Laden and both Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JAN 09, 2009 12:01 PM


holy crap, that is fucking fascinating. i mean, wow. somebody's sitting on a stockpile worth something like $42M (assuming $70/kg, which admittedly would drop if this surplus flooded the market). that shows some serious restraint, which in turn shows some serious power, which in turn proves (if anybody needed convincing) that we've got a hell of a hard row to hoe in Afghanistan.

ChrisSick said:
I was a bit unclear there, I believe I was referring to the Afghan population.


oh! oh, duh. sorry, i've been reading up on LeT a lot lately, so i tend to view a lot of stuff through that lens.

and yeah, Pakistan is definitely a 'friend' that we'd be wise to keep closer than a lot of our enemies.

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

JAN 09, 2009 12:11 PM

motorfirebox said:


holy crap, that is fucking fascinating. i mean, wow. somebody's sitting on a stockpile worth something like $42M (assuming $70/kg, which admittedly would drop if this surplus flooded the market). that shows some serious restraint, which in turn shows some serious power, which in turn proves (if anybody needed convincing) that we've got a hell of a hard row to hoe in Afghanistan.



Yeah. that story's been kicking around for a couple months but it still boggles my mind. Who the fuck grows two-to-three times the amount of heroin needed to supply all users worldwide for a year and then... puts it under their mattress? Hides it in a barn?

The idea of there being a glut of heroin suddenly available on the market to the point that street heroin could be sold for half the cost it currently moves at and most likely be twice as pure while in a middle of a global economic depression and soaring unemployment is not a pleasant one.



FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

JAN 09, 2009 12:17 PM

ChrisSick said:

Who the fuck grows two-to-three times the amount of heroin needed to supply all users worldwide for a year and then... puts it under their mattress? Hides it in a barn?



People who suddenly find themselves able to produce all the heroin they want. It certainly makes a lot of sense to stockpile it rather than tanking the market price by distributing it all at once.

ARRR!!!

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JAN 09, 2009 12:22 PM

no kidding. the first thought that occurs to me is that maybe whoever's controlling the majority of the Afghan drug trade (and judging from this, it's gotta be pretty much one small group of guys in control) has looked into their crystal ball and seen US forces burning poppy fields in their future. so they're saving up for a long winter now, ensuring that they'll have a revenue stream and the ability to resist the US and rebuild their empire.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

JAN 09, 2009 01:44 PM

The title of this thread put a song from the Buffy musical in my head.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JAN 09, 2009 05:21 PM

motorfirebox said:
no kidding. the first thought that occurs to me is that maybe whoever's controlling the majority of the Afghan drug trade (and judging from this, it's gotta be pretty much one small group of guys in control) has looked into their crystal ball and seen US forces burning poppy fields in their future. so they're saving up for a long winter now, ensuring that they'll have a revenue stream and the ability to resist the US and rebuild their empire.



I'm not sure it follows that there would be one small group in control. I can see that it's a fairly obvious conclusion, but I have the strong impression that Afghanistan simply is not that organised. I mean, if this happened in (say) London, or (picking a state more or less out of thin air) New Jersey, we'd be seeing lots of activity around the edges - armed robberies of stockpiles, that sort of thing.

What sort of organisation has the discipline and skill to make that amount of convertible riches just vanish?

Looks to me as if something is wrong with either the numbers, or the analysis.

dholokov

dholokov

Toronto, ON
April 2003

JAN 09, 2009 05:36 PM

Sometime within the first few years of the war, the soldier in charge of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan gave an interview where he told a reporter that it would take a minimum of ten years to set Afghanistan right. I wish I could find the article now, but I remember it very well at the time because it was so different from what the American position was.

GrayRains

GrayRains

Twin Lake, MI
January 2008

JAN 09, 2009 05:51 PM

dholokov said:
Sometime within the first few years of the war, the soldier in charge of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan gave an interview where he told a reporter that it would take a minimum of ten years to set Afghanistan right. I wish I could find the article now, but I remember it very well at the time because it was so different from what the American position was.



10 years and a helluva lot more soldiers. Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, yet the number of soldiers in Iraq is bigger. My question is simply, why?

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

JAN 09, 2009 05:57 PM

GrayRains said:

10 years and a helluva lot more soldiers. Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, yet the number of soldiers in Iraq is bigger. My question is simply, why?



Shitty US foreign policy.

ARRR!!!

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

JAN 09, 2009 07:06 PM

Morgan said:
The title of this thread put a song from the Buffy musical in my head.


Damn you, now it's in my head too!

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JAN 09, 2009 09:47 PM

ChrisSick said:

motorfirebox said:


holy crap, that is fucking fascinating. i mean, wow. somebody's sitting on a stockpile worth something like $42M (assuming $70/kg, which admittedly would drop if this surplus flooded the market). that shows some serious restraint, which in turn shows some serious power, which in turn proves (if anybody needed convincing) that we've got a hell of a hard row to hoe in Afghanistan.



Yeah. that story's been kicking around for a couple months but it still boggles my mind. Who the fuck grows two-to-three times the amount of heroin needed to supply all users worldwide for a year and then... puts it under their mattress? Hides it in a barn?


Mmm, the See Eye Aye perhaps? I'm sure we've all wondered about this. The clandestine agency has had quite a complicit past with the drug trade, so it's not beyond me. It's probably all sitting in a bunch of shipping containers worldwide in the harbors and loading docks maintained by Dubai Ports World just waiting for word to fund the next great venture...

The idea of there being a glut of heroin suddenly available on the market to the point that street heroin could be sold for half the cost it currently moves at and most likely be twice as pure while in a middle of a global economic depression and soaring unemployment is not a pleasant one.


No, not good. The time is ripe. frown

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next