# How much longer do we need to be in Afghanistan?



## ballz (7 Feb 2008)

By all means if this is in the wrong forum or I'm doing something wrong or asking for information/opinion that can't be provided then I'm sorry and of course take appropriate action.

But I am still a civilian, an applicant but a civilian, and I am curious to know since the opinion of most people in the Forces seems to be that we should see the mission to its end. I just want to hear it from people that actually know what's going on over there. I have to take everything I read and hear from media with a grain of salt, so it's hard to try and make my own assumption no matter how far off it would probably be.

So I want to know the opinions of people that actually know the real situation over there, who have seen and heard the unbias truth of it all. How much longer does NATO need to play a combat role? How long will it take to reconstruct? I'd like to hear as much as you're allowed to tell me because it is of great concern to me. Hell I might soon have to go vote for the first time in my life very soon, this information is relevant.


----------



## observor 69 (7 Feb 2008)

I am retired from the military but I believe the Manley report sums up the situation and does a good job of pointing the way forward for the Canadian government.

Here is a summary of his report.  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html

Extend Afghan mission if NATO sends more troops: panel
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 | 10:48 AM ET 
CBC News 
Canada's military should remain in Afghanistan beyond February 2009, contingent on more support in terms of troops and equipment, according to a panel led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley.

The five-member panel was not specific about how long Canada's mission in the embattled country should last. The report said it could find "no operational logic" for choosing February 2009 as the end date for the Canadian military mission in Kandahar, and there was nothing to indicate that it would be completed by that date.

John Manley, left, presents his report on Canada's future in Afghanistan to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Parliament Hill on Tuesday. 
(Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) "We are recommending a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan that is neither open-ended nor faint-hearted,” says the report.

The biggest problem facing the ISAF mission is that there are not enough military forces deployed against the insurgents, the panel observes.

"The mission is in jeopardy. There simply are not enough troops to ensure that the job can be properly done in Kandahar province ... we hope that this [report] is not a poison pill. We need to be very direct with NATO," Manley said in a news conference shortly after the release of the report.

The panel says Canada needs to remain in Afghanistan provided two conditions are met:

More at link.


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> How much longer does NATO need to play a combat role? How long will it take to reconstruct?



In a very simple answer, as long as it takes until the objectives are met. And that would be an Afghanistan that is stable enough to provide security for itself. And that, well, could take a long time. Reconstruction will take even longer, as reconstruction can't be effectively completed unless you have the security in place.

Because of the situation, as the Manley report brings out, it makes no sense to apply a set timeline. We'd only be setting ourselves up to failing to meet it, or leaving with a job undone. And THAT would be unacceptable.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Feb 2008)

I've been over there twice, but don't think that I have "unbiased truth."  We all carry biases, and being over there can create a sense of personal buy-in.  That being said, I believe in the mission, I believe in our Afghan allies and I believe in the Afghan people.  There are some warts and blemishes, but we have a chance to give the Afghans some time and space to bring their country out of the tailspin of the last thirty years.  September 2001 showed that we cannot live in splendid isolation.

I cannot offer a timeline for ending combat operations, but I would think in years as opposed to months.  We should think in terms of conditions as opposed to timelines. The combat vs reconstruction idea is, to my view, a bit of a false dichotomy in southern Afghanistan.  Both have to go on and they can be happening simultaneously.  My gut-feel is that the situation has actually improved since the summer of 2006 (I left in Aug 06), although some think-tank could probably throw out some statistics that would disprove that.  Regardless, there is still some tough sledding ahead.  I believe that we have to see this through.

Our efforts have to be multi-dimensional.  The military fighting part is necessary and perhaps the most obvious but it is only one component.

Cheers

T2B


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2008)

Oh of course we can't leave the job half-finished, that'd be worse than not starting it at all. I was asking more along the lines of how long you all thought that it might actually take to completely finish the job, to the point where we can leave and the country can defend itself against terrorism. But I can see that the reason it was so hard for me to find such an answer is because nobody really has an estimate, too many unknowns and of course the situation is pretty unpredictable.

Well, I also believe we should stick it through to the very end. I wish you all the best and maybe I'll be a part of it all who knows.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Feb 2008)

I read a paper recently that proposed that successful counter-insurgency operations last about 9 years, and unsuccessful ones last about 13. I think that's about right judging from my own reading of history. So, if you take the 2000-05 period as the "war", and the rest as COIN, then we've been at this for just on three full years. I wager we have 7 to 10 years to go before the country is able to look after itself. One of the least recognized things about Afghanistan is that after 30 years of warfare, the Afghans are very much a "go with the winner" people. NATO and its allies have to show strength over an extended period of time in order to convince the Afghans that the Taliban is not a reasonable option. We also have to grow a generation of children who have not known war all of their lives, and see cherish peace and security. It took us 15 years to accomplish this in the Balkans, Afghanistan is going to be much harder to succeed in.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ........ It took us 15 years to accomplish this in the Balkans, Afghanistan is going to be much harder to succeed in.




[Over his Timmies Double Double] You've got that right.  It still isn't quiet in the Balkans, but not as "loud" as it used to be.  Stop and think how long it took to bring things to some sort of normalicy in Europe after WW II.  Allied Troops are still in parts of Germany, Spain and England.  Cyprus is still occupied by Peacekeepers.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2008)

The critical factor is the graduation of this generation of 6 million Afghan children from school. This should provide the critical mass of people as the nucleus of skilled and educated people to actually take over and run things. 

Minimum time: 10 years.

My hope is the Field Force will be able to hand over most of the responsibility for security to the ANA by 2011, although without those skilled and educated Afghan people to provide the Command and Control, as well as provide the technical support for troops and equipment in the field, we will need to be in the background supporting the ANA for a decade as well.


----------

