[mukto-mona] Fwd: Thoughts on the Afghanistan troop surge...

 

 

From: farookahmed04@gmail.com
To: hdtrans@gmail.com, kirfani@aol.com, TauheedAhmed@hotmail.com, meganortagus@hotmail.com, sadiq.malik@gmail.com, omallick@gmail.com
Sent: 12/2/2009 11:16:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd:

 

Thoughts on the Afghanistan troop surge from a very thoughtful former Marine officer.

 

I am somewhat more optimistic than he is, as I believe that the "18 months" will become a bit more fungible if we need it to be (18 months from when? From now? From when troops begin to deploy? Or from when all the troops have been deployed?). I would have preferred to see closer to 40,000 troops, but 30,000 brings victory in the realm of the possible.

 

My opinion is that all of our efforts will be wasted unless the Pakistani government does an about face and decides to cut off jihadist groups once and for all. When we see shootouts with Mullah Omar's entourage in Quetta and drone strikes on Haqqani and Hekmatyar sites, that is when we'll know that we can bring this war to a successful end. I think that the troop increase is necessary to bring about those events and that it will serve to aid the Pakistani military if and when it decides to flip on the "Good Taliban."

 

We will need to work to empower civilians domestically in Pakistan, reassure military leaders that we won't leave them twisting in the wind yet again, and probably engage in some kind of peace effort on the Kashmir issue. At the end of the day, if we lose Afghanistan, the Taliban will use that country as a springboard to launch attacks into Pakistan, which no one wants (well, except for buffoons like Hamid Gul). The Pakistani military probably recognizes this but needs reassurance that its strategic concerns will not be abandoned.

 

I think that the troop escalation is necessary to convey all of those messages on a strategic level. On an operational level, it is also necessary to have a "hammer and anvil" effect if the Pakistani military decides to keep pressing on with its Taliban offensives and bring about a permanent change. Without the extra forces, the Taliban forces will be able to cross right back across that border into Afghanistan, just as they previously crossed the border into Pakistan. As far as tactics, we have emerged from the crucible of Iraq with a smarter military that is oriented towards fighting this kind of war, so I do not anticipate the same terrible bumbling that we saw for over three years in Iraq.

 

-Farook

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Overall, I do not believe in this plan:  This is a necessary war, but we don't want it to be an expensive one.  We have gone nowhere in the past 8 years, but we can get to where we need to in 18 months.  I won't give McChyrstal the 40,000 he asked for, but I'll give him 30,000.   He seems to be splitting the difference between what the two parties want.  (Instead of addressing those who "who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have," he should have addressed why the extra 10,000 will not be supplied.)  I support these troops arriving sooner, but ultimately it will all come down to whether or not we can train the armed forces and government to operate effectively in 18 months.  I am not optimistic.  Between this plan and a withdrawal, I am tempted to support the latter.  Going at it half-assed and on a short timeline seems like a recipe for disaster.  I do not have enough faith in his intestinal fortitude to double down when this plan fails, as expect it to.  God I hope I'm wrong.

 

When addressing his timeline, he does leave the door open for a longer commitment ("taking into account conditions on the ground") and a long advisory role ("We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul").   Dispelling the comparison between AF and Vietnam he said, "To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."  This must mean that, if the conditions on the ground are not suitable for our departure in July 2011, we would end up relying only on efforts from a distance, and therefore we would have to remain in AF.  This would lead to more troops, more blood and treasure, a longer and heavier footprint, etc.  What then is the advantage of this timeline, besides having always demanded one of Bush (which was ignored to Bush's credit)?  Lastly, that the Afghans know this will shortly be in their hands is not necessarily to our advantage, unless we actually believe the Afghans want the same as us.

 

He spoke of performance markers but offered no specifics. I expect those will be forthcoming in the next few weeks, and hopefully they are more exact than Holbrooke's analogy to pornography.

 

The government of Afghanistan isn't "legitimate," nor is "hampered" by corruption, the drug trade, etc.  It is "infected" with it, and a diplomatic surge will not purge them of that.  Why would they abandon their influence, money, and power?  Because some American bureaucrats, who will only be there until July 2011, ask them to?  He later added, "In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution."  It is difficult to take this sentence seriously. 

 

He stated that he owes us "a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service," and that that mission only requires an additional 30,000 troops for 18 months. 

 

I'm still not sure what the mission is, but we know now the overarching "goal" (which "remains the same") is, "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future."

 

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. 

1-    Deny al Qaeda a safe haven. 

2-    Reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. 

3-    Strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. 

 

To meet these objectives we will:

1-    Pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. Deploy the troops as soon as possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers, train competent Afghan security forces, and help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

2-    Second, we pursue a more effective civilian strategy (How many civilians will we surge???) so that the government can take advantage of improved security.  We will also allow the good Taliban to come in from the cold.  (cf:  democratic complaints about the Sawah movement in Iraq.)

3-    We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. 

 

I supported the means, the objectives, the goal, and the overarching goal.  The idea that we can do it all in 18 months would be risible if it weren't criminal.  We will have more Americans dying for nothing.

 

Other random thoughts:

·       He regularly spoke of NATO and our alliances, but I would hesitant to brag because A, their troops are not that effective, and B, I'll believe they are sending more troops when they actually do so.

·       Has the Taliban "begun to control additional swaths of territory," or have they been allowed to reenter by their Pashtun cousins? (Wherein lies a serious demographic dilemma - they are half of the damn country.)

·       Someone should count up all the times he said "I."  Actually, I just did.  46 for "I", 6 for "me" by my count.  I approved...I set a goal...I then announced...  Notice it was only for positive things.  He never said, I am responsible for all that fails to happen.

·       "There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period."  Strategy is the most important resource, not troops.  Neither here nor there - I don't disagree with him deliberating (he should have) but he again seems to be spending quite a bit of time protecting his reputation in all of this.  His concern should be the mission, not his ego.

·       Do Afghans have a sense of urgency...about anything?

·       "We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.  I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships.  And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity."  Another paragraph I can't take seriously.

·       "Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives.  High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide."  This is a counterterrorism mission.  Is this what the extra troops are doing?  And worldwide?  Surely we didn't need more troops to do so in all of these areas.

__._,_.___

****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___