Justification for war in Afghanistan

[questor]

Another view of the Afghani situation:

 

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban

The U.S. president also will have to come up with an Afghan policy, which really doesn’t exist at this moment. The United States and its NATO allies have deployed about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. To benchmark this, the Russians deployed around 120,000 by the mid-1980s, and were unable to pacify the country. Therefore the possibility of 60,000 troops — or even a few additional brigades on top of that — pacifying Afghanistan is minimal. The primary task of troops in Afghanistan now is to defend the Kabul regime and other major cities, and to try to keep the major roads open. More troops will make this easier, but by itself, it will not end the war.

 

The problem in Afghanistan is twofold. First, the Taliban defeated their rivals in Afghanistan during the civil war of the 1990s because they were the most cohesive force in the country, were politically adept and enjoyed Pakistani support. The Taliban’s victory was not accidental; and all other things being equal, without the U.S. presence, they could win again. The United States never defeated the Taliban. Instead, the Taliban refused to engage in massed warfare against American airpower, retreated, dispersed and regrouped. In most senses, it is the same force that won the Afghan civil war.

 

The United States can probably block the Taliban from taking the cities, but to do more it must do three things. First, it must deny the Taliban sanctuary and lines of supply running from Pakistan. These two elements allowed the mujahideen to outlast the Soviets. They helped bring the Taliban to power. And they are fueling the Taliban today. Second, the United States must form effective coalitions with tribal groups hostile to the Taliban. To do this it needs the help of Iran, and more important, Washington must convince the tribes that it will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely — not an easy task. And third — the hardest task for the new president — the United States will have to engage the Taliban themselves, or at least important factions in the Taliban movement, in a political process. When we recall that the United States negotiated with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, this is not as far-fetched as it appears.

 

The most challenging aspect to deal with in all this is Pakistan. The United States has two issues in the South Asian country. The first is the presence of al Qaeda in northern Pakistan. Al Qaeda has not carried out a successful operation in the United States since 2001, nor in Europe since 2005. Groups who use the al Qaeda label continue to operate in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they use the name to legitimize or celebrate their activities — they are not the same people who carried out 9/11. Most of al Qaeda prime’s operatives are dead or scattered, and its main leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are not functional. The United States would love to capture bin Laden so as to close the books on al Qaeda, but the level of effort needed — assuming he is even alive — might outstrip U.S. capabilities.

 

The most difficult step politically for the new U.S. president will be to close the book on al Qaeda. This does not mean that a new group of operatives won’t grow from the same soil, and it doesn’t mean that Islamist terrorism is dead by any means. But it does mean that the particular entity the United States has been pursuing has effectively been destroyed, and the parts regenerating under its name are not as dangerous. Asserting victory will be extremely difficult for the new U.S. president. But without that step, a massive friction point between the United States and Pakistan will persist — one that isn’t justified geopolitically and undermines a much more pressing goal.

 

The United States needs the Pakistani army to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, or failing that, permit the United States to attack them without hindrance from the Pakistani military. Either of these are nightmarishly difficult things for a Pakistani government to agree to, and harder still to carry out. Nevertheless, without cutting the line of supply to Pakistan, like Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Afghanistan cannot be pacified. Therefore, the new president will face the daunting task of persuading or coercing the Pakistanis to carry out an action that will massively destabilize their country without allowing the United States to get bogged down in a Pakistan it cannot hope to stabilize.

 

At the same time, the United States must begin the political process of creating some sort of coalition in Afghanistan that it can live with. The fact of the matter is that the United States has no long-term interest in Afghanistan except in ensuring that radical jihadists with global operational reach are not given sanctuary there. Getting an agreement to that effect will be hard. Guaranteeing compliance will be virtually impossible. Nevertheless, that is the task the next president must undertake.

 

There are too many moving parts in Afghanistan to be sanguine about the outcome. It is a much more complex situation than Iraq, if for no other reason than because the Taliban are a far more effective fighting force than anything the United States encountered in Iraq, the terrain far more unfavorable for the U.S. military, and the political actors much more cynical about American capabilities.

 

The next U.S. president will have to make a painful decision. He must either order a long-term holding action designed to protect the Karzai government, launch a major offensive that includes Pakistan but has insufficient forces, or withdraw. Geopolitically, withdrawal makes a great deal of sense. Psychologically, it could unhinge the region and regenerate al Qaeda-like forces. Politically, it would not be something a new president could do. But as he ponders Iraq, the future president will have to address Afghanistan. And as he ponders Afghanistan, he will have to think about the Russians.

is Obama the man for this task?

Article by George Friedman, Stratfor.com

[alexander]

You'd think, since Capitalist Americans are so good at marketing campaigns, we should be able to come up with a positive way to sell our democratic way of life to the people of the Middle East

i highlighted the key words

 

Capitalist Americans, won't save a child who's about to be ran over by a bus, if there is no way to profit from it

[pgrmdave]

So, how do we 'win' Afghanistan? First, I think we need to define what 'winning' is. It's not just setting up a democracy - democracies can elect dangerous people too. I think it's about setting up two things - a strong education system and a strong economy. People are less likely to be extremists if they have a secure, steady job, and if they have a good education. That doesn't mean that it would eliminate the problems, but that it would go a long way toward alleviating them.

 

I do not think that the current wars are truly serving the interests of any nations involved, nor do I think it would be a good idea for the US to abruptly withdraw from the areas. In the areas where our troops have a heavy presence, they are able to provide a more stable environment, which helps create a stable economy. I think that part of our problem is that our armed forces were used in two ways - first as an invading force, then as a policing force. The problem with that stems from the animosity that a population will feel toward an invading force carrying over to the policing force. Would, perhaps, Iraq and Afghanistan be better off if other nation's troops, without connections to the US, were used as policing forces?

[alexander]

To benchmark this, the Russians deployed around 120,000 by the mid-1980s, and were unable to pacify the country.

well, 120,000 is a slightly exaggerated number, that was the number reported by the various ministries of troupes deployed were not accounting for the killed/wounded/out of combat troupes, nor for the large amount of troupes who succumbed to desertion BTW the total number of troupes that was reported by the ministry in 86 was around 300k, now this includes the DRA forces (they started first phase of drawing out, which was to let Afghans fight the Mujahdeen forces. There was perhaps about 100K USSR forces in the country total at the time, if i had to guesstimate, some books claim that Soviet Union didn't actually have anywhere over 90k troupes in Afghanistan at any given time throughout the conflict... though i would question that a little...)

 

Also the current day soldiers have no CIA funding, nor training as they did in the 80's conflict, i think its a big distinction between the two wars that should be drawn...

[questor]

How much of our money should we spend to set up '' I think it's about setting up two things - a strong education system and a strong economy.''

Our own educational system is failing and our economy is failing. How much time and money do you wish to spend on a country that won't even let little girls attend school?

[Michaelangelica]

It seems that the consensus here is that the US is murdering and bombing innocent Iraqis as a matter of policy and we are in Iraq for our own selfish purposes, mainly oil. My view is that many thousands of Iraqis have been killed by other Iraqis and jihadists. American induced casualties to innocents have been minimal in comparison, regrettable but understandable when the combatants intermingle themselves with the populace.

As far as the oil question... where is our oil? Or where is the money we received for it? How much oil have we really taken?

If the population of Iraq wanted to end the war, it could happen tomorrow.

Sadr and the other Imams could exert their influence and drive out the Jihadists and form a coalition government.

It won't happen, they are too busy fighting among themselves and the idea of the infidel being in their country to work together for their own good. Wars can only be won by subjugation or winning the hearts and minds of the populace. We are not willing to do the former and have been minimally successful in achieving the latter. Is it our fault or the failure of the Iraqis to intelligently act in their own behalf..or is it that they really think this is another western crusade meant to take over their country and convert them to christianity? At any rate we need to save our own country financially and must end this unwinnable war.

We have killed and been killed, how many more troops, how much more money, how much more time?

 

What has this got to do with Afghanistan?

Iraq ia hardly in any position to help anyone.

 

I don't agree with Mr George Friedman, Stratfor.com

He seems only to select those bits of history he wants to

Firstly the Soviet war in Afghanistan was in effect a war between the US and USSR. The whole thing was a Cold War skimish The US was concered about the USSR's military and other development aid to Afganistan The CIA funnelled millions in arms to anyone opposing the USSR. This was done with the help and connivance of Pakistan who raked of some CIA $s for itself.

 

Pakistan's agenda seems to me to be to keep and encourage a destabilised weak Afghanistan.

 

The CIA also encouraged Saudi Arabia to fund those opposed to the USSR and the pro soviet government of Hafizullah Amin . This is about when Osama bin Laden trained troops and took them to Afghanistan to fight the Russians.

 

When the Russian left US lost interest, creating a power vacuum that allowed the Taliban to take power over much of the country meanwhile the States and SA (& the Bin laden family) were still pouring in masses of "aid"

 

he Russians deployed around 120,000 by the mid-1980s, and were unable to pacify the country. Therefore the possibility of 60,000 troops — or even a few additional brigades on top of that — pacifying Afghanistan is minimal.

The Russians were not just trying to put down an insurrection They were also fighting clandestinely the USA as well.

I am not sure these figures are correct. There are 60,000 Afgni police alone

The Afghan army in 2007 numbered 32,000 troops,

SEE

http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/i/me070909.htm

Bush was hoping for 80,000 NATO troops by now.

I know Australia has refused to send more troops until they see more commitment and pro-active military action from European troops.

The problem in Afghanistan is twofold.

What breathtaking confidence-only two fold? Then victory is a snap.

One major problem is to stop the funding of political parties (of all persuasions) with $Four Billions of heroin money every year.

 

The most challenging aspect to deal with in all this is Pakistan

.

out of the picture for the moment at some stage the CIA realised they 'were speaking with forked tounge"

The most difficult step politically for the new U.S. president will be to close the book on al Qaeda.

Depends. It is always good to have a baddie to blame things on. "Reds under the bed" has kept a lot of politicians in power over the years.

The CIA has had many opportunities take out OBL and to support and finance moderate war lords. Clinton and other presidents did not have the will.

 

Afghanistan cannot be pacified.

Then why is NATO there?

What is the objective of the war?

ie How will we know when we have "won".

 

For me a Justification for war in Iraq is harder to manufacture than Justification for war in Afghanistan

 

At the same time, the United States must begin the political process of creating some sort of coalition in Afghanistan that it can live with.

Which is the present government with its snouts in the pig-trough of drug money?

[Steve Davis]

The intent of al-Qaeda was not to "terrorise the Western world," their intent is to get US forces out of Muslim countries. This is glossed over by the Western media, with the result that many are confused and therefore easily led.

[modest]

The intent of al-Qaeda was not to "terrorise the Western world," their intent is to get US forces out of Muslim countries. This is glossed over by the Western media, with the result that many are confused and therefore easily led.

 

Welcome to Hypography Steve.

 

You present "terrorize the western world" and "get US forces out of Muslim countries" as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not, and it's reasonable to assume that al-Qaeda intends both.

 

I do, however, see what you're saying. When Bush says 'terrorists attack America because they hate democracy', he is painting over a painfully difficult gray area with his usual black-and-white stupidity. Terrorists do have motivations other than killing innocent civilians. The reasons are religious and political, and the US would do well to understand those reasons.

 

When McCain says that Iran is training al-Qaeda operatives it shows the general lack of understanding the higher-ups in US government have.

McCain on Al Qaeda in Iraq - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

McCain Gaffe: "Common Knowledge" That Iran Is Training Al-Qaida

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

When McCain says that Iran is training al-Qaeda operatives it shows the general lack of understanding the higher-ups in US government have.

McCain on Al Qaeda in Iraq - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

McCain Gaffe: "Common Knowledge" That Iran Is Training Al-Qaida

 

~modest

I hope he wins.

What a great time political cartoonists and satirists will have!:):)

[alexander]

I think that guys that say "we need to gear up and destroy Al-Qaeda" missunderstand what they are actually saying. Its the largest, to date, terrorist organization in the world. It has operation centers and thus enrollment and planning centers in anywhere from 70 to 100+ countiries. It's such a loosely linked organization that getting one cell, does not guarantee the revealing of any of the others. The main ways for anonymous communications has become the internet, where it can be increasingly hard to track communications, and encryption makes it close to impossible to, even if you track the communications, to then find out what is being said... i mean you are not going to gear up and invade 100 countries, like they did with Afghanistan and Iraq...

 

One more thing, prior to the US involvement in Afghanistan, US and the leaders of the UN council contacted some people in the organization to relinquish their leader to the US. To this the leaders of Al Quaeda replied that they would be willing to give up Osama to a neutral country for a trial, if the US could prove his involvement with the attacks. Bush, to all of that replied "Hand him over, we know he's guilty!", and US had to go into the war... is it just me, or it seems that they wanted to take over the country, one way or another, while seeming to look as if they were "fighting terrorists"?

[modest]

One more thing, prior to the US involvement in Afghanistan, US and the leaders of the UN council contacted some people in the organization to relinquish their leader to the US. To this the leaders of Al Quaeda replied that they would be willing to give up Osama to a neutral country for a trial, if the US could prove his involvement with the attacks. Bush, to all of that replied "Hand him over, we know he's guilty!", and US had to go into the war... is it just me, or it seems that they wanted to take over the country, one way or another, while seeming to look as if they were "fighting terrorists"?

 

It wasn't the leaders of al-Qaeda offering (and it wasn't a real offer anyway) it was the Taliban. The US made 5 demands of the Taliban (one of which was to hand over al-Qaeda leaders who were located in Afghanistan to the United Kingdom). The Taliban agreed to zero of the demands but offered to hand bin Laden over to a "neutral" country if the US "proved" he was guilty. I don't think it was a real offer - I think it was a stall tactic.

 

~modest

[alexander]

thank you for the correction, i could not remember where i read that, and knew there was a catch...

[questor]

Why would the US want to take over a country like Afghanistan, are you serious? Why did Russia want to take it over?

[REASON]

It wasn't the leaders of al-Qaeda offering (and it wasn't a real offer anyway) it was the Taliban. The US made 5 demands of the Taliban (one of which was to hand over al-Qaeda leaders who were located in Afghanistan to the United Kingdom). The Taliban agreed to zero of the demands but offered to hand bin Laden over to a "neutral" country if the US "proved" he was guilty. I don't think it was a real offer - I think it was a stall tactic.

 

~modest

 

This is correct, modest, as I understand it as well.

 

But keep in mind that to date, the United States has not produced any significant evidence linking Bin Laden, except for a poorly made video that allegedly shows Bin Laden confessing to his friends that he was behind the attacks. Unfortunately, the man does not closely resemble Bin Laden, and he is seen favoring and writing with his right hand when it is known that Bin Laden is left handed. My understanding is that there is a fair amount of skepticism by qualified obervers as to the authenticity of the video, and it is really the only piece of evidence that has been released that supposedly links Bin Laden.

 

Here is the actual Bin Laden confession video that was released.

 

YouTube - Bin Laden "Confession" Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhctMpvszqQ

 

Here is a mediocre attempt to discredit the video.

 

YouTube - 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BIN LADEN TAPE IS A FAKE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

 

Our invasion of Afghanistan was primarily predicated on that poor piece of evidence, that was never actually presented and verified in any type of hearing prior to our decision to take military action. But it was believed by everyone at the time that Bin Laden was responsible and that an immediate response was both warranted and necessary. Unfortunately, Bin Laden and the Taliban were allowed to get away so there has never been an opportunity to get any information out of him regarding the attacks. What if he had evidence that he was not involved? If we suspected as much, maybe we wouldn't be in any big hurry to capture him. :) Killing him will surely make him a historical martyr, and only rally more to his cause.

 

It would seem to me that the more evidence the United States produces that can confirm that Bin Laden was responsible, the easier it would be to justify our involvement in Afghanistan. It appears we are operating out of a fair amount of speculation. And I think that is damaging our credibility.

[alexander]

First correction, USSR or Soviet Union, not Russia.

 

They initially went in to defend the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan against the mujahdeen resistance, they also found out that US sold 5000 missiles to Saudi Arabia and was a major supplier of arms to any group fighting the communist parties in the region. The US-inspired treaty between Iran and Egypt did some major inspiration, too... So they went in to defend their "faction" in the area, fought for a bit, sent in more troupes, fought more, realize that there was a civil war going on. Then mujahdeen resistance got some funding from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, USA and some other Muslim countries, and the war turned into what Vietnam turned into for the US... (well, one big-*** failure is one way to put it)

 

US (this is the only explanation that has to date, made any real sense to me) went in there because they needed to invade some country to reestablish world dominance that has been crumpling in the last few failures, such were wars in South Africa, Nam and Korea and the Serbian Conflict (just to name a few), oh wait and the failure to keep Iraq in line after the first Gulf war... To jolt the economy a bit, to train some soldiers, to funnel some money out of the private sector, and into the millitary... I mean there must have been quite a few reasons, never mind the fact that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were both of their own making...

 

"War on Terror" was a catch phrase to market the war and get the people to back it up...

[alexander]

The tape where OBL claimed responsibility for the attacks (confessed), was not released until October 2004...

[modest]

I think bin Laden is a red herring anyway. The 9/11 hijackers were trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaeda. The US mission in Afghanistan was to destroy those facilities and deny al-Qaeda that safe base of operations. The US did that. As far as I’m concerned the war is over. Sure there’s still a NATO force there supporting the current Afghan government and that all well and good, but my concerns over Afghanistan were over the moment the Northern Alliance were in control of the country - regardless of bin Laden.

 

~modest