# Too Many troops For OIF ?



## tomahawk6 (21 Apr 2006)

The opposite side of the "not enough troops" argument used to attack the OPLAN used for OIF. Interesting topic of discussion for the shape of future war. The only way we will see more OEF's is if we train and fund opposition groups, Liberation Fronts, like the communists did during the cold war. In these tightly controled dictatorships the only organized opposition is outside the country. If we could use these groups as the basis for creating an armed opposition we might be able to build on them. However these folks generally are upper middle class that fled their country along with their wealth, hardly the stuff of revolutionaries.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1717110.php


----------



## couchcommander (21 Apr 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The only way we will see more OEF's is if we train and fund opposition groups, Liberation Fronts, like the communists did during the cold war.



Slippery slope.

Has some advantages, but also very notable issues that have come to bite us in the butt before (Mujaheddin).


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2006)

That sounds more like the SOE (Special Operations Executive) take on how to deal with an "occupied" country, tomahawk6.  Less Normandy and more Maquis.

OTOH doesn't that end up with less control over the end-state?  Supporting partisans left Churchill facing down Communist movements all over the place.  Afghanistan and Malaya were something of mixed results and Cuba and Vietnam (Bay of Pigs in the case of Cuba and allied support for Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese in the case of Vietnam).

OTOOH, 4 months and counting to form a government doesn't actually indicate a firm control over the end-state either.

Wouldn't it be grand if there were guaranteed "no risk" strategies?.

(Beat me CC).


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Slippery slope.
> 
> Has some advantages, but also very notable issues that have come to bite us in the butt before (Mujaheddin).



How so?  Although America funded the Mujihadeen during the Soviet Occupation through the Pakistani ISI, these Afghan groups really have nothing to do with the Arab-Afghans, Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or much of what we are dealing with today.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Apr 2006)

If memory serves, Mullah Omar was a veteren of a Mujaheedin faction.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> If memory serves, Mullah Omar was a veteren of a Mujaheedin faction.



No, Mullah Muhammed Omar was a small town preacher with no prior combat experience.  He showed up on the scene in '93; years after the US had lost total interest in the region.  Most of the Taliban were from the madrassa's on the Afghan/Pak border and had nothing to do with the Afghan mujihadeen groups that fought the Soviets.  Only a small number of the Taliban were actually veterans.  The Al-Qaida 55-Brigade, which supported the Taliban and was composed of foreign fighters, were veterans but there is no evidence to prove that American funding ever went to supporting them (these guys got their money from the Saudis and "charity" organizations). 

Ahmed Rashid's Taliban and Steve Coll's Ghost Wars both cover these topics.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Apr 2006)

Really? I wonder how he lost his right eye to the Soviets in the 80's?

It's been all over even mainstream newsmedia. 

I wasn't aware this was a bone of contention. 

Regardless, if you don't like the Mujaheedin comment, we can talk about the Contras if you want.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2006)

A quick Wiki shows you may be correct - much of what I read viewed Mullah Omar's wartime experience as shaky and clouded in myth (you can't even find a picture of the guy); like bin Laden, I recall controversy over whether these guys claims are really real.  Irregardless of his experience, the arrival of the Taliban and/or Al-Qaida did not stem from US funding or support to the muji during the anti-Soviet Jihad.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Regardless, if you don't like the Mujaheedin comment, we can talk about the Contras if you want.



...or the Republic of South Vietnam, or Saddam Hussein, or Pinochet, or any other host of shitty allies that we've had in the past.  I was only debunking the oft repeated claim that the Taliban/Al Qaida were former agents of the US Government.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Apr 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The arrival of the Taliban and/or Al-Qaida did not stem from US funding or support to the muji during the anti-Soviet Jihad.



I would agree that it wasn't the causative factor, but IMO it probably didn't help things. 

Anyway, there are plenty of examples of groups the US funded during the cold war that ended up getting out of hand. That was my point when I referred to it being a slippery slope - it's hard to exercise control over these groups. Things have ended up badly before, even if just in terms of "optics". 

*edit* and fair enough re: the myth comment. It's hard to tell fact from fiction with these guys. I'm pretty sure the eye thing is documented by an outside source, though I can't remember what now. I know that the entire "he fixed himself" thing is bogus though...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2006)

Couch Commander:

Just to reiterate.  The strategy is not a new one.  The US weren't the first to adopt a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  Nor were they the first to be bitten by it.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but often it buys time....if at some cost.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Apr 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The opposite side of the "not enough troops" argument used to attack the OPLAN used for OIF. Interesting topic of discussion for the shape of future war. The only way we will see more OEF's is if we train and fund opposition groups, Liberation Fronts, like the communists did during the cold war.



Seems to me that this was tried with the Taliban, and look where that got us.  (....as everyone seems to have picked up and posted before me. )


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Couch Commander:
> 
> Just to reiterate.  The strategy is not a new one.  The US weren't the first to adopt a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  Nor were they the first to be bitten by it.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but often it buys time....if at some cost.



Oui.   



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seems to me that this was tried with the Taliban, and look where that got us.  (....as everyone seems to have picked up and posted before me. )



Again, I'm still trying to find out when we actually propped up the Taliban or used them to further our policy.  The Taliban were the Pakistani's game....


----------



## Tebo (21 Apr 2006)

On the Taleban and their rise to power, foreign aid for fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets rewaded the most agressive factions.  Fundamentaliists were, generally by virture of their will to fight and die in service to their faith, far more successful in sercuring these resources and subsequent power.  How one would map and predict this outcome provides such challenge as to extinguish any sense of blame in my mind.

However, some measures taken by the US at the time certainly cross my ethical line and contributed to culture of violence we now must wade through: The textbooks published by the Univ of Nebraska during the cold war blow my mind. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Apr 2006)

Culture of violence ? You're kidding me right ? The military is all about the application of violence.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2006)

Slight correction Tomahawk: the military is about the controlled application of force in support of the objectives of the State.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2006)

Tebo said:
			
		

> How one would map and predict this outcome provides such challenge as to extinguish any sense of blame in my mind.



Huh?


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Slight correction Tomahawk: the military is about the controlled application of force in support of the objectives of the State.



I didnt want to get too technical. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2006)

> Huh?



Welcome home Infanteer......


----------

