How can one achieve victory without a clear definition on who the enemy is, what goals the war has, and how to achieve those goals.
The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the
formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy
cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", Datalinks
I have never seen the US even try define how victory over al-Qaeda would look like. Is it to kill the leadership and 10 sequential new leaders? One could argue that victory is at what ever point there is no more leaders, but how do you define that then? No announcement in 10 days from last killed?
Afghanistan is not impossible to conquer, you just have to define what conquer means. For some, it means sacking every town and metaphoric sail away with all the gold. Others want to build cities and extract taxes from people who lives there. If you define victory, victory is possible.
> I have never seen the US even try define how victory over al-Qaeda would look like.
"In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous."
No. If you sold Afghanistan to people in colonial style, it would be perfectly within the power of a middling nation or corporation (or hedge fund) to deal with it. The problem is having unreasonable expectations ; if you just care about killing terrorists and some mining, you don't need to deal with most of it.
(The article says this, too -- the issue is that the country is too poor to be worth the effort to conquer.)
I suspect you are correct, although it is unfortunate. Perhaps a better question to ask would be, is there a place in the world for people who just want to live a simple life? Since really what the 'conquering' is all about is keeping residents in Afghanistan (not necessarily indigenous Afghans though) from impacting the rest of the world in what are perceived to be negative ways.
And it is pretty clear from recent events that this is something of a pipe dream anyway.
When the US invaded Afghanistan, I (and some of my friends) smartassedly noted that where the British and Russians failed, so would the US.
Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really the world isn't better for my smartass comments.
The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box.
I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve it.
> I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve it.
imo They would not have fared batter. Vietnam is the prime example.
The problem is that historically the US doesn't do well in long term, large scale unconventional warfare, especially if it isn't conducted on open terrain. Even if SOCOM runs the show now, overall the strategy is still highly conventional.
Capturing Afghanistan is easy. Holding it every year is the true test.
The humiliation from Vietnam has improved our forces as a whole. However, the problem remains. How do you fight an enemy with little to no infrastructure? How do you fight an enemy with no real fixed base of operations or even command? Maybe the US does know how to win the war now. Winning hearts and minds of the occupied is the key. Unfortunately, knowing how to win and executing a win are two very different things.
To follow up, I think the project could be defined as 'the civilizing of Afghanistan". Reduce the chance of it nurturing terrorism, helping calm relations between neighbors, reducing the rates of violence.
Of course, in the UN framework this is not really up to someone else. Sovereignty and all of that.
> Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really the world isn't better for my smartass comments.
> The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box.
This isn't right. The problem was not enough people making comments like you did. The real opportunity, which you were supporting, was to not invade in the first place. You did more to make the world a better place than a lot of people (wrt this issue).
One wonders how democracy and modernization became part of the Afghan project. Had the US stuck to its goal of vanquishing Al Qaeda whilst merely deposing the Taliban, things would be different.
The world is a big place, and we rich westerners are not omniscient. Why Afghanistan needs democracy I will never understand, and why the US must bring it there puzzles me further.
Let it be a Pashtun Sharia state. So long as the bastards running it do not provide a safe haven to those plotting harm to the US and friends, all is well. It's a simple rule for leaders of any ideology to follow - and most importantly the drone fleets provide strong incentive for them to comply.
George Bush forgot that the only reason for the NATO invasion in the first place was that the Taliban refused to turn Bin Laden & Co over to him.
Yes. I would have killed the drug war, at least within Afghanistan (if you don't legalize, you can still buy all their heroin at field price and turn it into medical opiates or just destroy it), as well as splitting AQ off from the Taliban ("anyone who wants to leave must be allowed to do so"), and trying to have some minimal restrictions on the Taliban while letting them continue to rule. This probably would have been mutually acceptable.
The other option would have been funding the CIA Northern Alliance program 2001-2002 and letting JSOC play, but keeping conventional forces out (i.e. not letting the Marines take KAF for Christmas, etc.), and having a few years of civil war where the NA took over the country and killed a whole lot of Taliban with no real difference.
> Why Afghanistan needs democracy I will never understand, and why the US must bring it there puzzles me further.
Because democracy is the Trojan horse of the American imperialism.
I understand Americans don't like to see it that way, they'd rather think of themselves as good people and they are. But their elites are bloodthirsty bastards bent on conquering the world.
Look at the cold hard facts about American military "presence" in the world and tell me it doesn't look like an empire occupying its conquests ...
Afghanistan has vast reserves of minerals, including valuable rare earth metals and oil. With a friendly (whether democratic or not) government they could be mined efficiently, supplying the world and making Afghanistan rich at the same time. Like it happened with UAE.
I don't understand why the locals would not want that. We're gonna get there sooner or later, anyway...
Plus there's the issue of Afghanistan supplying opium to the world, but that doesn't concern the US with Mexico next door.
More idiotic HN commentards as usual. Instead of calling out the idiotic criminal enterprise know as the Afghanistan occupation for what is, they are finding more ways of rationalizing it.
Why don't they spend time debating the persecution of US, British and other Western European leaders for war crimes?
I don't suppose it occurred to them that there were no Afghans or Iraqis involved in the 9/11 'attacks'.
[+] [-] belorn|12 years ago|reply
Afghanistan is not impossible to conquer, you just have to define what conquer means. For some, it means sacking every town and metaphoric sail away with all the gold. Others want to build cities and extract taxes from people who lives there. If you define victory, victory is possible.
[+] [-] chaostheory|12 years ago|reply
"In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous."
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
(The article says this, too -- the issue is that the country is too poor to be worth the effort to conquer.)
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
And it is pretty clear from recent events that this is something of a pipe dream anyway.
[+] [-] grendelt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 911_Inside_Job|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanobjc|12 years ago|reply
Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really the world isn't better for my smartass comments.
The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box.
I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve it.
[+] [-] chaostheory|12 years ago|reply
imo They would not have fared batter. Vietnam is the prime example.
The problem is that historically the US doesn't do well in long term, large scale unconventional warfare, especially if it isn't conducted on open terrain. Even if SOCOM runs the show now, overall the strategy is still highly conventional.
Capturing Afghanistan is easy. Holding it every year is the true test.
The humiliation from Vietnam has improved our forces as a whole. However, the problem remains. How do you fight an enemy with little to no infrastructure? How do you fight an enemy with no real fixed base of operations or even command? Maybe the US does know how to win the war now. Winning hearts and minds of the occupied is the key. Unfortunately, knowing how to win and executing a win are two very different things.
[+] [-] ryanobjc|12 years ago|reply
Of course, in the UN framework this is not really up to someone else. Sovereignty and all of that.
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|12 years ago|reply
> The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box.
This isn't right. The problem was not enough people making comments like you did. The real opportunity, which you were supporting, was to not invade in the first place. You did more to make the world a better place than a lot of people (wrt this issue).
[+] [-] spikels|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethana|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atmosx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hammadfauz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sirkneeland|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexeisadeski3|12 years ago|reply
The world is a big place, and we rich westerners are not omniscient. Why Afghanistan needs democracy I will never understand, and why the US must bring it there puzzles me further.
Let it be a Pashtun Sharia state. So long as the bastards running it do not provide a safe haven to those plotting harm to the US and friends, all is well. It's a simple rule for leaders of any ideology to follow - and most importantly the drone fleets provide strong incentive for them to comply.
George Bush forgot that the only reason for the NATO invasion in the first place was that the Taliban refused to turn Bin Laden & Co over to him.
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
The other option would have been funding the CIA Northern Alliance program 2001-2002 and letting JSOC play, but keeping conventional forces out (i.e. not letting the Marines take KAF for Christmas, etc.), and having a few years of civil war where the NA took over the country and killed a whole lot of Taliban with no real difference.
[+] [-] jmnicolas|12 years ago|reply
Because democracy is the Trojan horse of the American imperialism.
I understand Americans don't like to see it that way, they'd rather think of themselves as good people and they are. But their elites are bloodthirsty bastards bent on conquering the world.
Look at the cold hard facts about American military "presence" in the world and tell me it doesn't look like an empire occupying its conquests ...
[+] [-] jotm|12 years ago|reply
I don't understand why the locals would not want that. We're gonna get there sooner or later, anyway...
Plus there's the issue of Afghanistan supplying opium to the world, but that doesn't concern the US with Mexico next door.
[+] [-] vfclists|12 years ago|reply
Why don't they spend time debating the persecution of US, British and other Western European leaders for war crimes?
I don't suppose it occurred to them that there were no Afghans or Iraqis involved in the 9/11 'attacks'.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chatman|12 years ago|reply