Gen (rtd) Bolduc on Afghanistan

[FJAG]

Retired Brigadier General Balduc who recently retired from commanding Special Operations Command Africa and who has ten deployments as a special operations officer including six in Afghanistan has just published an article entitled "As Afghanistan Fighting Intensifies It’s Decision Time for Trump and Taliban"

In recent weeks, reports have surfaced in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere that a senior State Department official, Deputy Assistant Secretary Alice Wells, has engaged in direct talks with Taliban representatives in Qatar. The State Department has confirmed only that she met in Doha with officials of the Qatar government. The Daily Beast also has reported on the months-long unofficial initiatives of retired U.S. Army Col. Chris Kolenda and Robin Raphel, a former U.S. ambassador, that helped open the way for these conversations.

But talks need to be based on a plan and lead to a conclusion, and it is far from clear that any firm decision has been made by the United States government about what that should be, and how it might be reached. The missteps in Afghanistan have been significant and while we tread water trying to figure out what happened, or where to go, we are wasting precious resources: 2018 must be the year of change in our policy, strategy, leadership, and approach or we will never get off this road we have been on for the past 17-plus years.

What’s required is a new group of thinkers to determine whether a complete military withdrawal or a return to the comprehensive strategy approach is viable or, alternatively, to depart from Afghanistan, or enter a truce with the Taliban.

. . .

See the rest of the article here:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ok-talk-to-the-afghan-talibanbut-what-about-wheres-this-supposed-to-go?ref=author

Bolduc's bio is here:

https://spiritofamerica.org/staff/brigadier-general-donald-bolduc

:cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

RAND has produced an interesting view on contemporary conflicts;  I included it here because Afghanistan is central to the author's argument.

The Risks of Permanent War

In a widely shared opinion piece published in the New York Times on September 11th, U.S. Army veteran Joe Quinn observed that for “the past 17 years in Afghanistan, we've tried everything: a light footprint, a big footprint, conventional war, counterinsurgency, counter-corruption, surges, drawdowns.” Despite having lost some 2,200 soldiers and expended some $840 billion in pursuing these various approaches, the United States has been unable to do more than sustain a stalemate with the Taliban, which presently controls about as much territory as it did immediately prior to America's intervention in 2001.

Some observers suggest that the U.S. will undermine its credibility if it withdraws from Afghanistan now, before accomplishing its objective. That objective, however, has proven difficult to discern, for it has changed over the years. Journalist Steve Coll argued at the beginning of the year that “American war aims in Afghanistan have been, and remain, riddled with contradictions and illusions,” such that three presidents have “offered convoluted, incomplete, or unconvincing answers to essential questions: Why are we in Afghanistan? What interests justify our sacrifices? How will the war end?” If the U.S. finds it challenging to answer such questions after nearly two decades, the coming years are unlikely to furnish additional clarity.

LINK

Obviously, the article is focused on the US, but we appear to suffer with many of the same symptoms. 

 

[tomahawk6]

This a rehash of Vietnam. When is enough enough ? The flip side is that the Taliban have not been destroyed but how good is their word if an agreement is reached ? If the coalition withdraws then it will be the ANA vs the Taliban, can the government survive ? After the US withdrew from Vietnam the government collapsed which is what could happen in Afghanistan.

 

[Journeyman]

This a rehash of Vietnam. When is enough enough ?

  :stars:  The only reference to Vietnam is your post.  Although if one were to compare with Vietnam, I would argue that the enemy is different, as well as the circumstances -- global communications, US conscription, relative physical isolation of the battlespace, etc...  But that isn't this discussion;  feel free to start up a Vietnam thread.


Or one could actually read the article and consider the points the author raises, notably:

- How to define victory, and what metrics could we use to gauge progress? The Pentagon states that its efforts are “geared toward one goal: maximizing lethality.” Lethality is a means, though, not an end.

- How does it affect America's economic stability? A recent assessment concludes that the US is “on course for routine trillion-dollar annual deficits, and the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in our history is within sight—in 2028 under current policy.”

- How does it affect America's ability to conduct important elements of its foreign policy, since relying on military means apparently reduces U.S. competitiveness and compounds its isolation abroad.

 

[tomahawk6]

The length of the two wars make them the longest in US history. The arguments for staying or leaving are the same. The y are very similar.

 

[Journeyman]

The length of the two wars make them the longest in US history. The arguments for staying or leaving are the same. The y are very similar.

So if there are similarities, perhaps rather than dismissing it out of hand saying "enough is enough," lessons could be learned so that maybe someone  could say, "hey, let's not do the same things over again hoping for a different result this time."

 

[tomahawk6]

I was in the Army as Vietnam wound to its conclusion.The similarities are inescapable to me. Put another way the Russians left Afghanistan as the British did before them why ? The US has yet to make a decision and most of our allies back the mission. I think many of us are hoping the ANA can defend that nation. I hope so.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not to sound like a peacknik but maybe step one might be for the US to have a change of doctrine and stop getting involved in these middle east countries to begin with.

Once that's done they might have more clarity on if and why they would stay.

I think there's a lot of countries out there (and cultures) that are simply incompatible with democracy.

 

[tomahawk6]

We became involved as a result of 9-11 because Bin Laden used it as a base of operations. I think our concern is that somehow Afghanistan will once again become a haven.