# Bush's Lost Year - Strategic Failure in the GWOT



## devil39 (19 Sep 2004)

The following is the latest article by James Fallows discussing his view that the war in Iraq is undermining the Global War on Terror.

Fallows criticizes the Bush administration for the committing a strategic error in the war on terror by invading Iraq.   

http://www.cpe-sf.com/ruthgroup/downloads/FallowsAtlantic.htm


This article is not unlike a simplified and more commercial version of the Jeffery Record article from the US Army War College, "Bounding the Global War on Terror".   

http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/gwot/bounding.pdf


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Sep 2004)

I can't fathom why Bush would leave the war on Alqueda (sp) in Afganistan before the job was done.


----------



## devil39 (19 Sep 2004)

CFL,

Agreed.   

I also think it is absolutely crucial that the US significantly improve the situation of citizens in those countries in which they intervene.   If the US fails to follow through on reconstruction they will merely garner ill will in the regions where they intervene.   Fallows launches some fairly stiff criticism wrt the US policy in Afghanistan.   

Obviously the US intervention in Afghanistan was very strongly supported around the world.   However the US failure to follow through with meaningful reconstruction, and the failure to provide stability and order throughout the country is undermining their long term strategic efforts elsewhere I'm afraid.   In the case of Afghanistan, the US did not need to provide the troops to police the outlying provinces, the international community likely would have committed troops to assist.   Fallows argues that during the reconstruction period in Afghanistan, the US shifted focus to Iraq, and was loathe to provide strategic lift and other logistical support to countries willing to police the outlying provinces, to the point of disallowing international forces outside of the Kabul area.

A rather interesting article.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Sep 2004)

Saddam would have still been there a few years later and had the US committed the same amount of troops in Afganistan vs Iraq they surely would have made more progress in find Bin Laden, maintained the worlds continued support, and the uprise in terrorism may have been kept to a minimum.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

I am of two minds on the subject.   Although I agree with some of the critics that the US is doing itself no good by getting involved in the civil conflict in Iraq.   Its (what I feel) main reason for being there is to influence regional behavioural patterns by other states.

1)   The way I see it, the US could give a fat rats ass about the development of Afghanistan.   It is a shithole rocky desert full of tribal men who fight for a living.   They've been doing it since Alexander marched in and I'm sure they'll keep it up for the next few centuries.   As such, I think they are inclined to sit in the south, root through all the nooks and crannies they can, and kill any terrorists they can find.   When they're done, I think they'll pull out and let the factions in Afghanistan pick up where the left off.

This could be good; perhaps the US recognized that it could do itself harm if it attempted to impose order on another militant society that is set in its ways and is extremely xenophobic (like they tried in Vietnam).   However, leaving the place as is could lead us back to square one in another 5-10 years.   Tough call.

2)   Afghanistan is sort of on the periphery.   The tribal version of Wahabism that arose there was a result of a social militarization in the madrassas of Pakistan during the '80's, kind of a Cold War anomaly.   We are now dealing with the consequences (or blowback, as one author termed it) of doing this.   Honestly, I think the Americans could influence events in Afghanistan through properly managing its historically up-and-down relationship with Pakistan more then they could by putting a Division in Herat (think winning on the Moral level as opposed to the Physical).

3)   Being that Afghanistan is on the periphery of Dar-al-Islam, I can see the justification for moving the war to Iraq, which is smack dab in the middle of things.   Control in some form over Iraq gives the US direct access to Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran; perps #1, 2, and 3 in the global terrorism game.   As well, your closer to Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon; who are also players in some form.   Perhaps the US was wise in believing that if it loaded down alot of troops in every piss-pot little mud-hut village in Afghanistan, they'd be away from the center stage action happening in the seedy allies of Riyadh, Damascus, Cairo, etc.

However, they've really stuck their hands in the hornet's nest, especially by going after guys like Moqtada, who were two-bit players in the local power games in Iraq that had no real bearing over on the War of Terror, they were just trying to pick up Saddam's leftovers.

Anyways, just some random thoughts from the peanut gallery.

Cheers,
Infanteer

PS: Here is a great cartoon I scanned from the March issue of Foreign Affairs reflecting on Afghanistan "democracy".


----------



## jrhume (20 Sep 2004)

Iraq had to go and now is as good a time as any.  As for Afghanistan, what more would we want to be doing?  The transition from old ways to new will take a long time, no matter what happens.  These things don't happen overnight.

In Iraq, the terrorists are coming from Baathist leftovers, religious fanatics, Syria and Iran, with others coming in from oddball places.  It seems to me a better strategy to let them come to us instead of trying to hunt them down all over the Middle East.  And if we weren't in Iraq, how would be strike at those in Iran?  Syria? Lebanon?  Even worse, they'd be might be coming at us in Afghanistan.  I'd rather fight them in Iraq.

Afghainistan is on the periphery.  Iraq is square in the middle of everything.  It is the best place to draw terrorists to and it is the best place to try and institute new ways.

I think most critics are too short sighted.

Just my nickels worth.


----------



## dutchie (20 Sep 2004)

Some feel that the War in Iraq is kinda like one of those mosquito zappers - it draws in terrorists from all over the Arab world to be dealt with en mass, making it easier (if you can call Iraq 'easier') and more efficient than going after them nation by nation (lets ignore the moral implications of that, shall we?). This theory assumes that the terrorists being fought in Iraq right now were terrorists to begin with. 
I feel that the War in Iraq is actually _creating_ terrorists. I don't see (unless the current situation changes) that the supply of 'terror converts' will dry up anytime soon. I hope it does, but I just don't see the US' policies and actions in Iraq allowing for a pacified populace. I am afraid that this war is only just beginning, and our friends to the south (the troops that is) are in for a long, tough road, from which I don't see an exit without a lot more bloodshed. As a soldier, this bothers me quite a bit, as I don't like to see my fellow soldiers die unnecessarily. 

ps-As well, I really don't want to debate my views on the Iraq war specifically, as I have beaten that dead horse like no other. 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18280.0.html

I am merely trying to put forth this view that terrorists are increasing in number, not decreasing, due to the War.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

> Some feel that the War in Iraq is kinda like one of those mosquito zappers - it draws in terrorists from all over the Arab world to be dealt with en mass, making it easier (if you can call Iraq 'easier') and more efficient than going after them nation by nation (lets ignore the moral implications of that, shall we?). This theory assumes that the terrorists being fought in Iraq right now were terrorists to begin with.
> I feel that the War in Iraq is actually creating terrorists. I don't see (unless the current situation changes) that the supply of 'terror converts' will dry up anytime soon. I hope it does, but I just don't see the US' policies and actions in Iraq allowing for a pacified populace. I am afraid that this war is only just beginning, and our friends to the south (the troops that is) are in for a long, tough road, from which I don't see an exit without a lot more bloodshed. As a soldier, this bothers me quite a bit, as I don't like to see my fellow soldiers die unnecessarily.



I agree with you for the most part here Caesar.

I don't buy the flypaper theory; the terrorists, as part of a 4GW force that I've been mentioning in other forums, are smart.  They aren't going to change their strategy and suddenly come out of the woodwork to fight US troop formations, meeting the Americans where they are strongest.  They will simply move away and adapt, preparing for another series of asymmetrical attack somewhere which hurts us most.

I don't feel that Iraq is necessarily creating more terrorists in the sense that Al Qaeda is having a big recruiting bonanza.  Rather, I think involvement in Iraq's civil conflict, which for the most part is largely unrelated to the GWOT, has earned the American ire of many more substate factions, thus making the job even more difficult.

Case in point: Moqtada al-Sadr was a minor chump in the overall hate-the-West game.  Even the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani thought he was a bump in the road.  Now, after the whole Fallujah thing, the guy has become a major player.  From some of the material I have read, this Shi'ite uprising has really gained the attention of Iran, who seemed to be toning down for the last few years as moderates were gaining ground.  Now, I think, they have given Moqtada a firm backing and he presents a whole new set of strategic problems in Iraq and SouthWest Asia in general.

I think a loose analogy could be considered akin to going into Northern Ireland to root out IRA terrorists and instead pissing off the Protestant Ulster Leagues.

I guess I would disagree with the statement that _"Terrorists are increasing in number"_; I don't think terrorism is as monolithic a force as we would like to believe.  However, I do think that the current way of going about things has brought new guys into the picture that weren't their before and who can make the game alot tougher.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## dutchie (20 Sep 2004)

Exactly Infanteer. The US isn't exactly CREATING terrorists, but are aggravating the moderate and 'somewhat moderate' citizens (I won't call them Islamics, because they are not all Islamics) of the Middle East. I suspect a lot of these folks would otherwise not take up arms against the US, but perhaps just limit their disdain to pontification over _kava_ (or whatever they call coffee) with their buddies at some Bagdad/Damascus/Tripoli/Gaza brewhouse. 

(I merely used my choice of words for clarity's sake.)


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

As a point of contention, I don't think the US invasion in Iraq is the underlying factor in this, in my opinion it is US involvement in the cities of the Tigris and Eurphrates River Valley.  I think the American's may have been better off taking down Saddam and maintaining a very neutral presence in the background; maybe just hang out in the desert and wait for the next bush war.  None of this "Let Freedom Reign" crap, let the locals sort out their own affairs.


----------



## dutchie (20 Sep 2004)

None of this "Let Freedom Reign" crap, let the locals sort out their own affairs. 

bingo!

 (someone sees this except me?!?!?!)


----------



## dutchie (20 Sep 2004)

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, or Iraq for that matter, I feel they should be making a real effort to rebuild some basic infrastructure ('Ghanistan) and give the contracts to locals (Iraqi's). I realize that the labourer type positions are being filled by Iraqis (in some cases but not all), but that's not good enough. The Iraqi's are not stupid people, and are very highly educated. A rebuilding process funded by the Intl community, but run by Iraqis would go a long way in quelling dissent among the moderates.The US is already spending billions in rebuilding costs, not to mention the extra troop costs (in $ and lives), so the argument that the work being done by US companies is a benefit is outweighed by the negative consequences......

Afghanistan is a 'shithole rocky desert full of tribal men who fight for a living' according to Infanteer (and I don't necessarily disagree), so maybe less $ and effort should be spent rebuilding - a couple of 100 tankers of diesel and a match should put the place back to where the coalition found it. Iraq, is a whole new ball o' wax, and a real opportunity for unbelievable success or failure of the US's position in the middle east.....right now, they are setting themselves up for a huge fall.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Sep 2004)

Caeser, I've heard what I think you are referring to as the "Flypaperâ ? theory: essentially a poker strategy.  Bush would draw terrorists (and soon-to-be) terrorists into battle on the streets of  Fallujah to be crucified by the American military, rather than allow them to "fightâ ? American civilians on the streets of New York.  He isn't "creatingâ ? terrorists so much as accelerating their development (and demise), while preoccupying them so they aren't killing the defenseless.

More to the point of the thread, Afghanistan was an important target, purely for the sake that it had (apparently) become the base of Al-Queda operations.  In the strictest sense, it was not as important of a strategic target in the geographical sense (as I will argue below), as it was in the political and tactical sense.  The UN, in it's infinite moral superiority, has deemed the Afghanistan invasion permissible and thus has a shared obligation (with the US) to ensure it's ultimate success.  The lack of willpower to 'clean-up' (for lack of a better way of putting it) is more clearly shared by the International Community in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq, ergo, it is MORE in the (pure self-)interest of the US to 'clean-up' Iraq than Afghanistan.  I'm not really trying to lay or deflect blame, just to explain the way I see things.

Iraq is a very different story: the Middle East in general has long been a hotbed of terrorist activity (duh!), with Iran and Iraq the two most dangerous states (in terms of both capability and, um, political disposition).  The US (actually, the non-Islamofascist world) needed any excuse necessary to neutralize these regimes: as changing the political disposition of Iraq was probably all but impossible, destroying it's capability was a necessity.  Now that Saddam has been booted, Iran is still to be dealt with.  As an aside, I am not saying that Syria (for example) is not capable of (or doesn't already) supporting terrorism with WMD; I am suggesting that they are seen to be more responsive to political and economic pressure than either Iraq or Iran.

As with the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) aimed at isolating North Korea, with Iraq 'out of the way' Caspian Guard (US, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan) aims to do the same with Iran (which aims to eventually include several other bordering states and puts the US in a very tough position vis-ÃƒÂ -vis Turkmenistan).  And who knows, (partially contradicting what I said above) maybe Afghanistan was seen as a launching pad for this. A quick glance at any map of the Middle East reveals that once established, how important it is to maintain a pro-American presence in Iraq for this strategy to succeed.  I suspect that the Caspian Guard strategy goes far beyond non-proliferation and could more rightly be seen as containment at the least, or more likely, the beginnings of a regime change strategy, which on the basis of recent history might well be effected without the need for direct invasion.

As Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.â ? 

Not sure how relevant it might be to this particular discussion, but I've just been reading the "Canada At Warâ ? Maclean's collection and interestingly, one of the articles refers to the reluctance of the Iraqi's (of course they weren't called that at the time) to outwardly accept a new regime/government that they actually favoured until they were certain of the new government's ability to outlast counter-invasions by their former oppressors (for fear of retaliation by same).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Sep 2004)

Sorry guys, I fell a couple of posts behind formulating mine: my bad!   :-[


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

> I feel they should be making a real effort to rebuild some basic infrastructure ('Ghanistan) and give the contracts to locals (Iraqi's). I realize that the labourer type positions are being filled by Iraqis (in some cases but not all), but that's not good enough. The Iraqi's are not stupid people, and are very highly educated. A rebuilding process funded by the Intl community, but run by Iraqis would go a long way in quelling dissent among the moderates.The US is already spending billions in rebuilding costs, not to mention the extra troop costs (in $ and lives), so the argument that the work being done by US companies is a benefit is outweighed by the negative consequences.



I agree to an extent.   Although I generally think we should be involved more in overseas development, especially in strategic areas like Iraq, it requires certain preconditions to be successful.   Trying to do it now in an Iraqi civil war is silly; it would be akin to try and build a strip mall in Sarajevo in 1994.   In order to allow the contractors to perform their duties, you have to house them in a "Green Zone" and protect them with troops.   What happens?   Four contractors are strung from a bridge in Fallujah and we get the situation we've been talking about in this and other threads.  In this case, two factors are detrimental to the American strategy:

1) The presence in Iraqi society of large numbers of armed troops of an occupying power.  This just blares "occupation" to an average Iraqi.  The fact that they take sides (many times are forced to) only serves to further exacerbate the problem.  Even in societies that are relatively accomadating to the US (ie: Korea, Japan) has instances were large amounts of troops cause political problems.

2) The fact that these troops are isolated in large, well protected bases in the middle of these communities from the average Iraqi community further increase this notion of "occupier"; how would you feel if you were some Iraqi who watched Saddam get kicked out only to have some new untouchable figures move into his palace and run the show.  Perhaps, in this case, the presence of formations of armed troops, while adding strength on the physical level, only hands strategic initiative over to our opponents on the moral level (see my thread on Fourth Generation Warfare).

Let the Iraqi's sort their new political climate out, and offer whoever comes out on top the opportunity to join the international community and receive help from other states.   Any political problems can be addressed through other means; we can use our aid as an attempt to induce change through civil society rather then attempting to export democracy on a bayonet.   If they insist on being belligerent, remind them of the fate of the last Iraqi head of state who didn't want to play ball.


----------



## dutchie (20 Sep 2004)

Bush would draw terrorists (and soon-to-be) terrorists into battle on the streets of   Fallujah to be crucified by the American military, rather than allow them to â Å“fightâ ? American civilians on the streets of New York.   He isn't â Å“creatingâ ? terrorists so much as accelerating their development (and demise), while preoccupying them so they aren't killing the defenseless.

First, it's not terrorists they are fighting in Iraq, it's insurgents. Terrorists don't attack soldiers, they attack civilians. 
Second, the insurgents aren't the only ones being 'crucified', so are US soldiers. And I object to that term 'crucified' by the way, as it is loaded with religious implications that would best be left out of the argument.
Third, the US, in my opinion, is in more danger of a terror attack now than before the war. 
Further, the terrorists seem to be a tough nut to crack, and it's a little optimistic to even suggest that as a group, they are meeting their 'demise'. 
Finally, the terrorists don't seem to be too occupied to bomb trains in Madrid or Aussie embasies in Indonesia....maybe it's the US that is becoming increasingly 'pre-occupied'.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Sep 2004)

Finish one job. Start new job.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

I don't think you can really look at it like that though.

Sure, you spend all your resources into fixing up Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, things in Pakistan have gotten so out of control that, when you move on to Iraq, Afghanistan quickly relapses into anarchy and the Taliban regain power.

Afghanistan and Iraq are all portions of a much bigger job; staying focused on that job is the key.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Sep 2004)

I'm not neccesarily saying to fix Afganistan but to finish the job of eradicating the Al Quida (SP) and neutering Bin Laden to the best of your ability then move on.  Sure its nice to fix the place but they should have turned that figured head into pink mist before leaving and keeping a fraction of their forces there.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Sep 2004)

You can't really insure a secure and safe environment for the locals to rebuild if you only hold the one major city and have a severly reduced role in the hills where Al Q can regrow and flourish.  The US had cart blanche to do whatever they wanted there until they were done.  Now they have 3 fronts (home, Afgan, Iraq).


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Sep 2004)

Afghanistan was the "90%" solution in recognition of the Law of Diminishing Returns.

What has been achieved in Iraq is the early triggering of the Iraqi Civil War under controlled circumstances (ie. foreign occupation).   Iraq is not a very good candidate for "natural" nationhood.   We will only ever be able to speculate whether allowing Hussein to die (naturally or otherwise) in office would have led to greater or less instability.


----------



## devil39 (20 Sep 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Iraq is not a very good candidate for "natural" nationhood.



Certainly true, and there are those who suggest that it should be allowed to split 3 ways.   I am not certain we will ever see the Kurdish north back in an Iraqi nation.   Certainly not without significant concessions and the same freedoms they enjoy from central authority today.

I am a believer in the school of thought that states Rumsfeld and others in the Office of the SecDef meddled with a workable military plan for partisan political purposes, and as a result wound up without enough troops on the ground to properly secure the country after the war.   

Winning the war was never in question.   A successful occupation was jeopardized by a shortage of soldiers on the ground, and an initial failure to appeal to the international community for assistance in conducting the occupation phase of this war. 

In my opinion the invasion was justified, however the justification was very poorly articulated by the administration.   

The occupation was bungled by a shortage of manpower, and political strategic meddling in what should have been the "Operational" Commanders purview.  That purview being the execution of the campaign plan with the resources deemed appropriate by those tasked to physically carry out the campaign.


----------



## dutchie (21 Sep 2004)

This might be overanalyzing a bit, but if you look at the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, and compare the two overall strategic options put forth here, I think you might see that there was a better choice. This is kind of an expansion of what CFL said (if you don't mind CFL):

Option #1 (reality)- Identify Afghanistan/Taliban as supporters of Al-Q, gather intel regarding plans, pers involved, locations of camps, evidence of links to 9/11, etc, etc, etc. Invade, destroy known camps/hideouts, topple Taliban, look high and low for Bin Laden and assoc. Scour the countryside, failing to find him, assumne he fled to Pakistan and points beyond. *STOP*, go to Iraq, raise heck, topple Saddam, attempt to placate populace, fail (for the time being anyhow). 

AchievementsAfghanistan)-Taliban not nearly the threat they once were Internationaly (although domesticaly a real threat), Al-Q camps destroyed. 
(Iraq)- A real monster is removed as leader of Iraq, oil flows from Iraqs wells to world (as opposed to the balck market oil that flowed since the end of the '91 war), Baath party removed, organizations of torture and depravity destroyed, world sees first hand that Saddam really didn't have WMD    , threat that Saddam could attack a neigbour and provoke another war outside Iraq removed. 

Failures (Afghanistan):Bin Laden still out there (as well as most of his top associates), Afghanistan is no less a breading ground for terror than before, Ghanistan's infastructure is worse off than before (if that's possible), most of country controlled by warlords who are as bad if not worse than Taliban, opportunity lost to better the lives of perhaps the poorest people on earth, and an opportunity lost to show the Arab world that the West is capable of working with them to better the region. 
(Iraq)- Insurgency that seems poised to overwhelm US forces at times doesn't seem to be dying, Iraq on the cusp of civil war, otherwise marginal figures (Al-Sadr) gain power and 'respectability' by opposing the US occupation, civilian foreign workers kidnapped/executed fairly regularly, Iraqi 'rich' citizens kidnapped and murdered very regularly, regular attacks on Iraqi police/NG killing good men that could help bring country under control, despite elections on horizon and 'handover of power' the country seems less and less likely to become anything that resembles a democratic state. 

Option #2- Identify Afghanistan/Taliban as supporters of Al-Q, gather intel regarding plans, pers involved, locations of camps, evidence of links to 9/11, etc, etc, etc. Invade, destroy known camps/hideouts, topple Taliban, look high and low for Bin Laden and assoc. Scour the countryside, failing to find him, assumne he fled to Pakistan and points beyond. Continue search for Bin Laden, pressure Pakistan to give full assistance to the coalition in search and arrest of Al-Q operatives, with the help of Intl community (especially the Arab world) develop some form of responsible gov in 'Ghanistan (not necessarily democratic), gather intel from US sources as well as Intl intel sources regarding terror groups and their activities (thereby gaining their trust in the US findings of terrorism). Once stability (relatively) has been gained in 'Ghanistan, and evidence supports action in other states (ie Iraq), and UN/Intl support has been gained, take action elsewhere (Iraq). Then if the crap hits the fan, it's not just the US's problem but also the problem of every state that supported action.

Possible achievments: (Afghanistan)-Taliban not nearly the threat they once were Internationaly (although domesticaly a real threat, Al-Q camps destroyed, Bin Laden still out there , Afghanistan is no less  not a breading ground for terror than before, Ghanistan's infastructure is worse off than before improved, most of country controlled by warlords recognized government who opportunity lost to better the lives of perhaps the poorest people on earth, and an opportunity lost to show the Arab world that the West is capable of working with them to better the region. 
(Iraq)-With a clear success in Afghanistan, and a clear plan and mandate in Iraq, the US could only improve their chances of achieving it's stated goals. With a plan, and clear goals, it also gives the US an 'exit-strategy' once those goals are achieved.More Intl/Arab support for action means more sharing of the pain and cost (US economy not put into serious jeopordy), a real handover of power to Iraqis is established and a pro-west/US government a possiblity (as opposed to the zero chance such a government could survive one week today), a chance for real reform in the Arab world regarding Arab-US relations. otherwise marginal figures (Al-Sadr) gain power and 'respectability'  remain marginal by opposing the US occupation.

Or as CFL stated so perfectly, finish one job, start another. Yes, Infanteer, you have to look at the overall goal, but it's one step at a time.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Sep 2004)

No problem.  I ain't so eloquent.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2004)

Certainly plausible.  But I think there is a weakness in the fact that your entire alternate scenario revolves around the notion that focusing on Afghanistan would eventually lead to:



> Ghanistan's infastructure is improved, most of country controlled by recognized government who better the lives of perhaps the poorest people on earth, and an opportunity show the Arab world that the West is capable of working with them to better the region.



Sort of like "Domino Effect Thinking"; stabilize the country to prevent the spread of communism terrorism.  The US tried that with great success in Vietnam; in my view the lost the war when they put a bullet into Diem's head.

Bottom line; I think "developing" a country like Afghanistan is a long and arduous process (it took how many years to sort out Germany and Japan), one that we cannot afford to sit on and do our best when more pressing concerns in the GWOT.  Your assumption above, although ideal, seems to believe that all the Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazara, Baluchi, and other assorted bands of tribal warriors are going to put down their traditional xenophobic warrior ways and march to the tune of development and civil society by "Letting Freedom Reign!".

It may be possible to do, but in my opinion, not against the backdrop of a larger geopolitical conflict that we are seeing now.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Sep 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> First, it's not terrorists they are fighting in Iraq, it's insurgents. Terrorists don't attack soldiers, they attack civilians.


That's the point!



> Second, the insurgents aren't the only ones being crucified, so are US soldiers. And I object to that term crucified by the way, as it is loaded with religious implications that would best be left out of the argument.


Sorry if you took me to be making some kind of religious connotation, but I meant it in the sense of "the infliction of extremely painful punishment or suffering," and neither the ancient form of execution (literally) nor the Biblical account of the death of Jesus (which is what I figure you mean by religious implication).  More to the point, these people are being forced live and die in a 'war' zone, rather than living openly and peacefully (while they plan their next attack) on the streets of New York, Toronto, etc.  As invasions go, the invasion of Iraq has been very successful (certainly in historical terms), so I don't buy your argument that the Americans are 'being crucified as well' (unless you are referring to John Kerry's press releases).  Put it this way: ideology aside, I can't imagine anyone would rather be in the position of the insurgents than the American troops in Iraq.




> Third, the US, in my opinion, is in more danger of a terror attack now than before the war.


Possibly, but how much of that danger was caused BY the war (on Iraq, I assume you mean), and how much MORE danger would there be if they had not?  Here's a clue: the Russians warned that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US right after 9/11 ... http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/ (of course as it was not part of the P.C. 'Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism' argument, it didn't made the front page ...)




> Further, the terrorists seem to be a tough nut to crack, and it's a little optimistic to even suggest that as a group, they are meeting their 'demise'.


As individuals, they are.  I think you misunderstood my line of reasoning: the 'group' we are talking about are Islamofascists (for lack of a better term): those that in the past would have 'graduated' (from merely hating the West) to terrorism are instead becoming 'insurgents' and being killed before they become 'terrorists'.




> Finally, the terrorists don't seem to be too occupied to bomb trains in Madrid or Aussie embassies in Indonesia....maybe it's the US that is becoming increasingly 'pre-occupied'.


WTF?  Wars aren't won overnight: yes, terrorists still exist and they are being drawn out of hiding and not *every single one* is in Iraq: there WILL be more attacks.  That doesn't mean that they aren't losing ...




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Afghanistan and Iraq are all portions of a much bigger job; staying focused on that job is the key.


EXACTLY, IMHO!




			
				CFL said:
			
		

> I'm not necessarily saying to fix Afghanistan but to finish the job of eradicating the Al Quida (SP) and neutering Bin Laden to the best of your ability then move on. Sure its nice to fix the place but they should have turned that figured head into pink mist before leaving and keeping a fraction of their forces there.


When was last we heard from him?  I suspect he is little more than a pink mist already (but no body = legend lives).




			
				devil39 said:
			
		

> Brad Sallows said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Much the same could (still) be said about Canada: I think, once some of the more militant elements have been pacified a quasi-Canadian model would make a lot of sense ...




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> We will only ever be able to speculate whether allowing Hussein to die (naturally or otherwise) in office would have led to greater or less instability.


Do you mean this domestically or internationally (or both)?  And is "stability" still the end goal (certainly Bush repudiated that notion (in the international case) in his "London Speech" of November 2003)?




			
				Caeser said:
			
		

> Option #2- Identify Afghanistan/Taliban as supporters of Al-Q ...


I suspect that Option #2 IS reality, with the following caveats: 1) Bin Laden probably already dead, but certainly very ineffective as a leader in any event; 2) Pakistan IS co-operating as best they can, given their domestic political environment; 3) the US felt (and still does) that they had enough 'evidence' (of terrorist co-operation) on Saddam to justify invasion and 'regime change'; 4) Russian and French financial interests, and German domestic political reality ensured that full UN support for invasion of Iraq would never happen (deVillepins actually said that the French would never support another resolution authorizing 'automatic' use of force - WTF?); and 5) the US expected greater UN and NGO support for both political (Afghanistan) and humanitarian (moreso Iraq) reasons, which simply did not materialize.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Bottom line; I think "developing" a country like Afghanistan is a long and arduous process (it took how many years to sort out Germany and Japan), one that we cannot afford to sit on and do our best when more pressing concerns in the GWOT ... It may be possible to do, but in my opinion, not against the backdrop of a larger geopolitical conflict that we are seeing now.


And all the moreso WITHOUT the unconditional backing of the "International Community" ...


----------



## dutchie (21 Sep 2004)

"As individuals, they are....those that in the past would have 'graduated' (from merely hating the West) to terrorism are instead becoming 'insurgents' and being killed before they become 'terrorists'."

So let me get this straight. It's ok to invade a country, infuriate the populace (rightfully so in my opinion), drive them to armed resistance, kill them and call it success claiming if we hadn't they might attack our civilians due to their anger _that we caused in the first place_? What makes you think that even a majority of these Insurgents (or Freedom Fighters depending on your perspective) would become Terrorists against the West/US? 

"As invasions go, the invasion of Iraq has been very successful  "
I'll concede that, but the occupation has not gone so well, has it?

"I suspect that Option #2 IS reality" - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Goober (21 Sep 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> ...
> So let me get this straight. It's ok to invade a country, infuriate the populace (rightfully so in my opinion), drive them to armed resistance, kill them and call it success claiming if we hadn't they might attack our civilians due to their anger _that we caused ibn the first place_? What makes you think that even a majority of these Insurgents (or Freedom Fighters depending on your perspective) would become Terrorists against the West/US?
> 
> ...



Thats how I see it. Just because the rebels are taking up arms against their occupiers, doesn't mean they are terrorists.

The job in Afghanistan should have been finished before another front was established. The US didn't have to be the ones to finish it either. They had the support of the international community, they should have embraced it more, and set a stronger foundation in Afghanistan before moving on (reconstruction, security..).

I read an interesting article that parralels the war in iraq to another war in the 40's

http://groups.msn.com/WelshRepublicanComment/freedom.msnw



> The place was a house in T. The time was AD.... The terrorists were A.V. and E. H. The occupiers were informed about the hiding place of the terrorists by a collaborator. The occupiers attacked the terrorists in the house. The terrorists fought back. Two of the attacking occupiers were killed by the terrorists. The occupiers killed A.V., but E.H. survived seriously wounded. Then the occupiers left T. The inhabitants of T. made "a fatal misjudgment", they thought that the occupiers got "those they wanted" and left. However, four days later the occupiers came back.
> 
> They arrested 66 men of T. and shoved them in a shed where they were subjected to the "psychological torture" of imminent execution. A few hours later they were driven to the top of a mound so that they could witness the blowing up of their houses, one after the other, according to the decision of the occupiers. Then they drove the women, the children, and the old people in a concentration camp taking care as "punishment" to separate the children from their mothers. Of the 66 men 31 never saw their home place again. Most of them died in concentration camps. Some were executed. The women, the children, and the old people returned to their destroyed homes three years later.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Sep 2004)

Why did you cite that?  Did you feel a need to fill space, or do you intend to support the view that the US occupation of Iraq is equivalent to the Nazi occupation of Norway, notwithstanding the fact the US is not levelling villages with helicopters (or dynamite) or shipping entire families off to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?  Do you think the Norwegians wanted their government replaced by Nazi puppets to the same extent that Iraqis wanted their government replaced, period?  The Germans invaded Norway to occupy it, period.  Is that a reason the US invaded Iraq?  Yes, people under occupation can learn to dislike those who rock the boat.  It doesn't mean that at the end of the tunnel liberation isn't worth some price.  *If it isn't worth some price to the people living under occupation or tyranny, then there is no need for anyone else to ever intervene except in self-interest.  The oppressed can pay the other price - the one they know.*

Regarding instability: my view is that eventually Hussein had to die or become sufficiently infirm that someone would be tempted to overthrow him.  I can not see why the Kurds would seek to rule all of Iraq, or settle for less autonomy.  I can not see why the Shi'ite majority, backed by Iran, would not use the opportunity to rearrange the distribution of political power.  Iraq, like Yugoslavia, was a nation held together by a strong central ruler.  Remove the ruler, and all manner of unpleasant conflict might be expected.  My speculation is that by intervening, the US forestalled a greater tragedy (provided a full-blown civil war is not the result anyways).  I am pretty sure that smarter people than me were able to predict this after witnessing the mess in the Balkans and the cost of trying to deal with it on the cheap.  However, while the Balkans furball could have been ignored (if you are willing to accept the cost of ethnic cleansing) with minimal impact to people outside the region, an Iraqi civil war would impact a great many people outside the region economically (oil).  No matter which way it is sliced, the downfall of Hussein would be seen as a crisis/opportunity by very many players inside and outside the region.  What has happened is that the US got its foot firmly in the door first.  What remains to be seen is whether the initiative and advantage will be cast away by honest mistakes or political opportunism.  People content to believe it was all about oil or WMD have merely committed the error of limiting their fields of view.


----------



## dutchie (21 Sep 2004)

I am not going to defend another's post, Brad, but it seems to me he is comapring one occupation with another. I can see some definate similarities between German ocupation of Norway/France/Whatever and the US occupation, but have chosen not to draw those comparisons mainly because by doing so I would infuriate so many as to lose any chance of meanigful discussion. Having said that, by denouncing his comparison, you do not automatically legitimize your assertion the US invasion is justified.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Sep 2004)

Whoa!  How is the US/UK/Australian/Polish/etc. occupation anything like the Nazi occupation of Norway?!?!?  We're veering into serious Godwin terroritory here!

How about a little perspective: 

A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.  Full results here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Not good enough?  Why not look at some information directly from an Iraqi (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109526698046079070):

I guess we all agree that hatred is probably the main precursor of violence, so a full understanding for this unpleasant feeling is needed if we we're looking for a way to end the violence, and finding answers for questions like: why hatred appeared? when did it begin for the first time? what are the related factors? and who contributed in provoking hatred? Is a key step in curing hatred.

As the world is living the 3rd memorial of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC opened a forum for Arab readers to allow them to voice their feelings about the â Å“hatred wave against Americaâ ?. This time the forum has a special significance because Arabs are directly related to this topic and the largest part of this â Å“waveâ ? comes from Arab countries.
I've found that all Iraqi participants (except for two) carry no hatred for America, not to mention the admiration and gratitude for America that were clear in some Iraqis' comments.

Anyway, I decided to translate most of the comments posted by Iraqis along with some of the Arabs' comments that caught my attention so that you can view some opinions that can rarely be seen in the media and I decided not to translate any of the offensive comments which you can find almost everywhere. I must add that most of these posters with offensive comments said that their comments were directed â Å“against the American government, not the peopleâ ?.


â Å“America is not an enemy of Arabs and Muslims, on the contrary, on many occasions she backed Muslims when other Muslims did nothing like in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. America helped us get rid of the worst dictatorship in history and despite the unstable security situation now in Iraq we breath freely and say whatever we want to say without fear from Saddam and his dogs
I was-and still-working as a teacher and Saddam was paying me 2 dollars a month, can you imagine that? while he paid thousands and thousands to his followers. Things now are much better for me and I feel grateful for America and the coalition for what they did to save usâ ?
Amjad Al Ubaidy -Baghdad/Iraq.

â Å“The Americans are peaceful and smart people. Unfortunately, this hatred was created by some clerics who try to brain-wash the youth every Friday after the prayers so many would go out with hatred in their hearts and anger toward Americaâ ?
Reemon A'adil Sammi-Iraq., etc., etc., etc. (ad naseum) ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Sep 2004)

Yes, the quoted passage compares one occupation to another.   My point is that the author, and the people citing the author, need to find a meaningful comparison.   That is true regardless whether one takes up the undocumented assertion that the US supports the most obnoxious collaborators or the weak attempt to equate professional soldiers with mercenary killers.   It would help if the first part of the rant was limited to an objective comparison and not merely a springboard to an ideological tantrum.

It was not my intention to justify the US invasion by my response.   It was my intention to illustrate that inaction, when one has the power to do something, can also have consequences.   Those consequences should form part of the framework of a discussion.

Back to the topic: what should the strategic aims of the GWOT include?   Should we simply play whack-a-mole, or attempt to change the initial conditions?


----------



## dutchie (21 Sep 2004)

Whack-a-mole...now that's funny!
 ;D

Seriously though:

The GWOT is doomed (IMHO) unless there is a strong, widespread coalition. I feel that since the majority of global terrorism is originating in the muslim/Arab world, membership in the coalition must include as many Arab and Islamic nations as possible. If the West/US thinks it can 'go it alone' with just a few allies I think they are kidding themselves. They don't have the resources to fight an elusive enemy on a dozen or more fronts, even if some of those engagments are limited in scope.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2004)

Goober, you should consider taking off you Noam Chomsky inspired blinders if you want to join an intelligent discussion....


----------



## Goober (22 Sep 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Goober, you should consider taking off you Noam Chomsky inspired blinders if you want to join an intelligent discussion....



Perhaps you should refrain from obnoxious posts, I didn't realise you dictate what is intelligent. Your view isn't the only view you know.

Brad:



> Did you feel a need to fill space, or do you intend to support the view that the US occupation of Iraq is equivalent to the Nazi occupation of Norway, notwithstanding the fact the US is not levelling villages with helicopters (or dynamite) or shipping entire families off to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?



I do support the view that many things are similar between the two occupancies, but not all of course. The US is not leveling entire villages no, but their smart bombs don't seem to be too smart. There are many videos out there as proof the US has bombed many civilian targets. Collateral damage is always a factor in war, but how much is too much? Also the US seemed to round up a whole lotta families when they first took over. Taking all men of fighting age, and even some children to their prisons in suspected homes, or neighborhoods. http://www.sundayherald.com/43796



> ...
> It was not my intention to justify the US invasion by my response.  It was my intention to illustrate that inaction, when one has the power to do something, can also have consequences.  Those consequences should form part of the framework of a discussion.


'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' I agree with you there. This discussion has a lot of views and a lot of people are putting their own in the mix. I was simply drawing some parallels because most people seem to think that the US is the good guy and the Iraqi rebel is the bad guy in this Iraq war. I don't think it is as clear cut as that. I'm not saying the US is the bad guy and the rebel the good guy either.

A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq. Which Iraq isn't right now, it's an occupied country. The US has one view, that they are helping Iraq become free. That may happen. But that's not how the Iraqi rebels feel, to them, they are being taken over by the US, and don't trust their words. So they are fighting for their freedom.

Both sides are fighting for Iraqi freedom, yet neither agrees with the way the other is doing it.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2004)

> Perhaps you should refrain from obnoxious posts, I didn't realise you dictate what is intelligent. Your view isn't the only view you know.



I don't dictate what is intelligent, but clearly your suggestion wasn't.  Your defining the term "occupation" quite loosely; if you think Americans are Nazis due to the fact that they have occupied Iraq, than you truly have no firm grip on reality.  Are we Canadians Nazis invaders as well for occupying parts of Germany in 1945?

Don't be a moron.


----------



## Goober (22 Sep 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't dictate what is intelligent, but clearly your suggestion wasn't.   Your defining the term "occupation" quite loosely; if you think Americans are Nazis due to the fact that they have occupied Iraq, than you truly have no firm grip on reality.   Are we Canadians Nazis invaders as well for occupying parts of Germany in 1945?
> 
> Don't be a moron.



You seriously need to stop the name calling.

And I don't think Americans are Nazis. As I said in my second post, I was only drawing parallels.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2004)

Quit sobbing.

If you're are going to draw parallels, at least try to use some common sense.

The idea that America + Iraq = Occupation = Nazis + Norway is as silly as saying Israel + WestBank = Occupation = Nazis + Poland.   Although their may be connections among various ideas, they are blurry and disjointed and your parallel includes some logic that stretches the truth and compares apples to oranges.  If you want to debate this junk, go find a receptive audience at your local revisionist university campus.

If you're going to put up a ridiculous notion, prepared to get ridiculed for it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Sep 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> I do support the view that many things are similar between the two occupancies, but not all of course. The US is not leveling entire villages no, but their smart bombs don't seem to be too smart. There are many videos out there as proof the US has bombed many civilian targets. Collateral damage is always a factor in war, but how much is too much?


What?!?  In the sense that there are "many things that are similar between" the Hitler-Jugend and the Boy Scouts, too?




> Also the US seemed to round up a whole lotta families when they first took over. Taking all men of fighting age, and even some children to their prisons in suspected homes, or neighborhoods. http://www.sundayherald.com/43796


This happens in war: sometimes a 17-year-old with an AK74 is just as dangerous as an 18-year-old with an AK74.  Deal with it.




> most people seem to think that the US is the good guy and the Iraqi rebel is the bad guy in this Iraq war. I don't think it is as clear cut as that. I'm not saying the US is the bad guy and the rebel the good guy either.
> 
> A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq.


According to this Iraqi you are totally wrong:

there was no resistance but there should've been one, so the Iraqi resistance was 'invented'.

This started with foreign fighters crossing the intentionally left open borders with finance from outside. These fighters joined the remnants of the BaÃƒÂ¡thists who although were defeated, were still alive and had huge amounts of money and many supporters who just ran away when faced with the overwhelming American power, but couldn't find a job or a life for months. Another way to make the opposition to the American presence look like a real resistance is by using many names for the same organization. For example we could see a bunch of masked men on TV claiming they are part of "Ansar Al Sunnaâ ? or whatever, and few days later, we see other bunch of masked men calling themselves "Mohammed's armyâ ? and it's not just a guess but I believe that these are the same people; meaning they are ex-BaÃƒÂ¡thists united with Salafies mainly from outside picking a different name for illusionary organizations so the one power that represent one very small segment of Iraqis and one that is much hated inside and outside Iraq, looks like many parties representing different segments of Iraqis. One incident that support this is when one of those Mujahideen took his mask of his face to show that he's not afraid of showing his face anymore, and all Baghdadees who were watching recognized the man. He was a well known BaÃƒÂ¡thist and a security agent at Saddam days and now he's a member of an Islamist group! http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109500766922657561




> Both sides are fighting for Iraqi freedom, yet neither agrees with the way the other is doing it.


Yeah, right: one man's terroriist is another man's disciple of God who practices at the rifle range in his free time so he can nail a fleeing kindergardener in the back at 50 metres (I must have missed the USMC's last "beheading video").


----------



## dutchie (22 Sep 2004)

Why don't we get the thread back on track and discuss the GWOT and not simply Iraq.

Goober: if you want to discuss Iraq on it's own, there is another thread

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18280.0.html

Do you have any other points not related to Iraq? I myself am tired of the debate of the legitimacy of the Iraq War (not that I don't have a strong opinion on the matter). I just think that unless you have more to discuss other than "US bad, Iraqi Freedom Fighters good", maybe you should find another thread.

What are your views on the Global spread of Islamic Fundamentalist-based Terrorism(or Islamo-fascism as John Galt calls it)? What should be done and by whom?


----------



## Goober (22 Sep 2004)

Islamic Fundamentalist-based Terrorism or Islamo-fascism is a culture, and children are raised in it. The only way to stop it in my opinion, is to destroy the teachers, and educate the children. But destroying the teachers breeds new hate in sympathisers to thier teachings. So I believe the support of many countries is needed, or else falure is assured because the sympathisers will turn thier anger and hatred to the few who are trying to destroy them, more will join thier cause and the problem gets worse.

The job of destroying the teachers needs to be done in full force, and completed fully. Then the international community needs to band together to help rebuild the lands and educate the children.

Even then I don't think that would be the end of Islamo-fascism, but it would definatly be less of a threat to the world.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Sep 2004)

>A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq. [...]. So they are fighting for their freedom.

A bold assumption.  Perhaps they are loyal to their own political interests and are fighting to rule the country - without sharing power - by their own vision?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Sep 2004)

I would agree with Brad that these "people" want to rule Iraq/ all Muslim countries in their own image/beliefs.


----------



## Goober (22 Sep 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq. [...]. So they are fighting for their freedom.
> 
> A bold assumption.   Perhaps they are loyal to their own political interests and are fighting to rule the country - without sharing power - by their own vision?



Well, it is a bold assumption. Your own could very well be right, not loyal to Saddam, but very much like him.


----------



## Acorn (22 Sep 2004)

There is a great deal more evidence that Brad's assumption is closer to the mark than yours. The majority of Iraqis, when they are able to freely express their feelings, voice a desire to simply live in peace and freedom. The "insurgents," when they express any political opinion at all (there are those groups which are simply criminal), usually tend towards a Wahhabi-like expression if Sunni - in other words Sunni religious rule of the whole Muslim world with the harshest interpretation of Shari'a Law. Shi'ite "rebellion" is mostly backed behind the banner of Muqtada al-Sadr, and is clearly a power grab. 

Acorn


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Sep 2004)

I heard a comment the other day, the gist of it was this - "This is the second war in Iraq. The first one, against Hussein's regime, was won. The new war is between the insurgents (many from other countries) and the Iraqi people who are trying to form a new Government. " 

If this war was simply the insurgents versus the US/Coalition aggressors, why are they killing far more Iraqis, than they are coalition members?


----------



## pbi (23 Sep 2004)

It has been a couple of days since I discovered this thread. I've looked it over and read some of the linked stuff.

Based on what I see going on here in Afgh now, IMHO there probably was a missed opportunity due to a decision to shift focus to Iraq, but alll the gloom and doom about "abandoning" Afghanistan, or "failing to do meaningful reconstruction" or "not letting non-US forces do peacekeeping outside Kabul" etc., etc. are to a certain extent OBE.

Afghanistan is not the US main effort, but to suggest that it has been "abandoned" is nonsense. The US has a pretty healthy military presence here, which is regularly engaged in combat ops in the Pak frontier country and stabilization and security ops (SASO) all over hte place. That frontier area is the only area in which there is really still an identifiable ACF presence. The majority of the rest of the country, although not "secure" in a Bosnia sense is far from being dominated by ACF(although they have pockets, such as in the area of Kabul and up near Kunduz). The local warlords, for the most part, are sitting tight until after the Presidential Election. The US and the Afgh govt defused the Herat situation with almost no bloodshed.

The Paks are not sitting idle, either. Although one could argue for a certain Byzantine ambiguity in the attitudes of some of their security people, there is not much doubt that a Corps of 70,000 troops has deployed along their side of the frontier and is engaged in rooting out at least some of the ACF who traditionally were based there. Two Pak Army officers are here at CJTF76 as LOs.

As for reconstruction, the US operates 17 Provincial Reconstruction Teams all around the country from the Herat area around through the south and up into the eastern provinces. These are all well supplied with lots of funds and are engaged in various reconstruction projects. The CG of CJTF76 regularly flies off to attend the opening of a new road, new govt facility, etc. all over the country. UK, Germany, NZ,  Netherlands and several other countries operate PRTs in the ISAF North AOO which covers most of the northern portion of the country. The Brits in particular are quite successful. It is a fallacy that ISAF is confined to Kabul. 

It is also a fallacy that the US is trying to stop the spread of ISAF: they have recently demonstrated that they are interested in giving up ground to ISAF, not taking it back. The limitation on ISAF is not, IMHO the desire of the US to restrain NATO, but rather the unwillingness of Troop Contributing Nations (TCN) to cough up what is needed, and the uncertain political will behind the 37 nations involved.

Apart from the PRTs doing infrastructure reconstruction, the UN and other agencies are engaged in humanitarian work, while various NGOs and deminers like DDR and Halo Trust are busy all over. Kabul itself, although only one city, is insanely busy with economic activity: the streets are completly clogged with trucks, vans and buses, and all kinds of new businesses are being built, both in the city and in the surrounding area. The markets in the city are full of produce.  The reconstruction business here is most definitely NOT being done "only by big US corporations": driving into Kabul I can count at least half a dozen heavy construction company yards, all apparently operated by locals.Brickyards have sprung up everywhere.

It is definitely not accurate to describe Afghanistan at this moment as a wasteland populated by people who can hardly wait to fight each other again. The general impression is that there is amongst most people desire for stability and peace, if only for selfish gain. The machinrey of government and security is being slowly rebuilt, not without serious problems some of them cultural in basis such as corruption and nepotism.

There is still danger, and the ACF are by no means defeated yet, nor have we probably yet seen the peak of their anti-election terror campaign, but there is nothing on a scale even remotely approaching Iraq's ordeal. Afghanistan will not  become Mississauga overnight, nor even in a year, but there are strong indications that life is returning to normal. People who have been away from the country for a year or so have returned to comment in amazement on the changes. This is why it is important for the West to stay engaged here. Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Sep 2004)

Peace is what you have when people are too busy making money and indulging themselves to fight.


----------



## pbi (24 Sep 2004)

Brad: exactly. And that would be the most important condition for sucess that OEF/ISAF could create: a stable environment that permits economic growth to continue, and to spread its benefits outward. This is, IMHO, a text-book demonstration of the idea that military force is a vital tool in the toolbox of nation-building, but only one tool. Cheers.


----------



## devil39 (24 Sep 2004)

pbi,

Certainly the US is welcoming outside involvement now.   

Was it always this way?   I seem to recall manning caps in Kabul and jurisdiction issues in the early days.   This is only my perception from the lower tactical spectrum of the issue.     I felt there was no end of TCNs willing to contribute in late 2001 and early 2002.   Even Canada tried to commit to Kabul in 2001, but our infantry were not wanted, no room, hence our involvement with the US TF.   2.5 - 3 yrs later it is obviously harder to entice TCNs when the mission is no longer a cause celebre.

I'm not talking about abandonment, the article is a viewpoint and nothing more, albeit with some truth in it.

However, in my opinion, reconstruction efforts outside of Kabul could have been more effectively managed with greater international involvement, more money, and an earlier response.   My experience tells me that there is/was no end of infrastructure development required in Afghanistan.   A good wage in 2002 was $7 per day.   We didn't hire enough people at that wage.   If we had we probably could have enticed them away from the warlord and substituted a pick for an AK.   And I am not a bleeding heart idealist as you might well know.

It comes back to Barnett and his Leviathan force and his System Administration force.   I don't think Afghanistan post July 2002 needed the 82nd Airborne kicking down doors.   Or at least not as the primary deployment force into the hinterland.   A good follow-up when some ass-kicking was required perhaps.


----------



## pbi (25 Sep 2004)

> And I am not a bleeding heart idealist as you might well know.



You just destroyed my long-held view of you.I'm shocked...... :crybaby:


I agree that in the earlier days, the ball was fumbled:


> Based on what I see going on here in Afgh now, IMHO there probably was a missed opportunity due to a decision to shift focus to Iraq



and that ill-thought out things were done and good things left undone. The US are quite good but they are not supermen or geniuses. The military serves a political system that can be as fickle as ours. Even now there are conflicting currents swirling over the way ahead, especially WRT the very, very thorny issue of Counter-Narcotics(CN) operations.

My point is that I do not see any real evidence that it beyond salvation, or that the "abandonment' which IMHO is at least implied in places on this thread, actually occurred. There is a very difficult, and probably long road ahead of Afghanistan but it appears to me that hte right steps are being taken now, if not before. Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Sep 2004)

devil39 said:
			
		

> And I am not a bleeding heart idealist as you might well know.



Aww come on DevilBoy - we all know you wear Birkenstocks...


----------



## devil39 (25 Sep 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> The US are quite good but they are not supermen or geniuses. The military serves a political system that can be as fickle as ours. Even now there are conflicting currents swirling over the way ahead, especially WRT the very, very thorny issue of Counter-Narcotics(CN) operations.



Having spent time around and walked through a few poppy fields, I was always quite relieved that our mission did not include CN.   

CN will be a hornets nest of ill will that will make the greater mission much more difficult to achieve IMHO.

Again this goes back to reconstruction.   I have stated this in other posts.   If I was an Afghan farmer, for no other reason than sheer economics, I would grow opium, given the lack of a more viable alternative.

I believe the figures were that opium produced 10 times the profit of wheat and required one quarter of the water.   One must look after their family.

If Americans (and the rest of the West) care about stopping terrorism and cutting the source of terror funds around the world they should solve the drug consumption problem in the Western world.

Do not increase the risk to your soldiers by ordering them to stop the production of a cash crop in an economically depressed country, a production that is feeding a Western affliction.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2004)

You could cut Afghanistan, Taliban, and opium from that last post and replace it with Columbia, FARC, and cocaine.

What do you think?  Are there common approaches to rebuilding areas which subsist off illicit narcotic crops? (Approaches which do not consist solely of burning crops)  Is their a lesson to be learned from Afghanistan that we can apply to Columbia (or vice versa)?


----------



## pbi (25 Sep 2004)

So far, only the British Govt have shown any real interest in CN, and they have not gone the field-burning route. I have heard that the Us Govt wants a CN plan developed here. IMHO the US military here, and ISAF are understandably both extremely reluctant to go looking for another dragon when the present one is far from dead yet. Really and truly, at this stage of the game it is almost irrelevant if farmers grow poppies. At least they have money in pocket and food in their mouths, which is far more conducive to stability than having their livelihood stomped and burned by foreign troops (or ANA/ANP reluctantly pressed into doing it...) Another problem is that some of the most stalwart allies against AQ/TB/HIG are themselves producers. To launch aggressive CN against them would almost certainly guarantee their enmity, which is not what we need right now. IMHO, both OEF and ISAF have to keep focused on the near term goal-a successful Presidential election next month that is not accompanied by a bloodbath, with a further view to the Parliamentary elections in the sprin of 05.

Let the poppies blow, I say. Now is NOT the time. Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Sep 2004)

devil39 said:
			
		

> If Americans (and the rest of the West) care about stopping terrorism and cutting the source of terror funds around the world they should solve the drug consumption problem in the Western world.



That sounds dangerously like something that Lloyd Axworthy may have said.  It is about treating the disease, and not the symptoms.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2004)

CN has to be solved on the demand side.  As long as the return on risk is high, the risk (to cultivate and distribute) will be taken.

I am not certain legalization is a complete solution.  The distributors might react by forming the equivalent of a diamond or oil cartel to hold up prices.  That will not dissuade the producers from reverting to other crops.

Illicit drug use provides money to organizations that undermine the efforts of legitimate governments (eg. Columbia) to maintain law and order, and to organizations that exploit people (eg. organized gangs involved in prostitution and pornography).  I would guess that 99% of the people who object loudly and frequently to the meddling of the US in other nations indulge in at least occasional drug use.  What is necessary is to make them realize and acknowledge that they are equally guilty of promoting human misery.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2004)

> That sounds dangerously like something that Lloyd Axworthy may have said.



After his honeymoon with our nation's Foreign Affairs, Axworthy joined the faculty at my university.   Although I never took any of his courses, I did attend some presentations and lectures in which he spoke.   In my opinion, he is an angry buffoon who blames the US for the failure of his "Soft Power" doctrine.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Sep 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In my opinion, he is an angry buffoon who blames the US for the failure of his "Soft Power" doctrine.



It always struck me that the Soft Power doctrine was like a hothouse flower - it bloomed on paper and in the rarified atmosphere of the halls of academia, but soon withered in the intense glare of reality.


----------



## pbi (26 Sep 2004)

> It always struck me that the Soft Power doctrine was like a hothouse flower - it bloomed on paper and in the rarified atmosphere of the halls of academia, but soon withered in the intense glare of reality



Yes and like a flower it grows best in a big load of sh*t.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Sep 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Yes and like a flower it grows best in a big load of sh*t.



No no, tell us what you really think...


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Sep 2004)

Bush's problem is his and his administration's arrogance and the lack of diplomacy when dealing with the World as a whole!!


----------



## Andyboy (29 Sep 2004)

"Bush's problem is his and his administration's arrogance and the lack of diplomacy when dealing with the World as a whole!!"

I hear this assertion of arrogance repeated time and again but without any examples to back it up, could you please be so kind as to illustrate your point for me?


----------



## winchable (29 Sep 2004)

The problem is, that what is arrogant to some, is strength and leadership to others.
Just depends on what end you're at.
Seems somewhat subjective yeah?
If Earl were to tell you what he finds arrogant about American foreign policy you might see it as merely looking out for American interest.
Now, technically you're both right.

I think it's still a tad early on to see how arrogant, or un-arrogant, the Americans are being in the middle east. 
The middle east is largely a result of bad leadership from all of the middle eastern countries, Muslim, Jewish etc. Colonialism (Old timey colonialism, the brits, the french etc.) and the Americans are somewhat new to the fray.

..Now..if we're looking for some kind of established arrogance (substitute your definition here) Look to Latin America..But that is a whole other topic.

I personally believe that Bush isn't too different from any other president, slight foreign policy differences, different speech deficiencies,, but for the most part he's like every democrat or republican that's been in office. So if he's arrogant, stupid etc...then the rest were?
My jury is still out on Bush, history will probably be the judge of all of this. I'm certain we'll have blown ourselves up by then anyhow.

But that really is an entirely different subject, a much larger one. Just thought I'd point out how subjective the term Arrogant can be.


----------



## Andyboy (30 Sep 2004)

Thank you Che, that was my point, arrogance is an opinion. I think his biggest problem is people "misunderestimate" him because of his speaking style.

As for "Bush isn't too different from any other president, slight foreign policy differences" you may want to do some reading on the Bush doctorine. 

This is an exellent overview and summary of the WOT and the Bush Doctorine: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm  

It's long but well worth the read.


----------

