What should have been done in Afghanistan

[NatMorton]

Would anybody bet about the time when the Taliban control Afganistan again?

This Tuesday, no later than 3pm local time.

 

[NatMorton]

regardless of what objectives you've imagined, it didn't work.

The coalition did just what you described and failed to crush the Taliban, remove it from the battlefield, dismantle its armed wing or render it politically irrelevant.

The only thing it could 'succeed' in doing is just what it did for twenty years: hang around, waste money and lives then pack up and leave things more or less as bad as they were when the coalition arrived. They could have kept doing that I suppose, for 30 or 40 or more years for the same result. Afghanistan's problems seem impervious to the presence of foreign troops; they just go on doing what they want wherever the coalition doesn't have control.

You're making no sense. I'm not arguing the strategy of last the 20 years as worked. Is there a reason you keep arguing against what is not in the OP?

 

[jnug]

You're just not thinking clearly. Let's suppose three years from now we learned of a terrorist cell in Afghanistan and decided they needed to be taken out. The decision is a given, and now it's just about how. Would we have more or fewer options with a forward presence in the area? Short of dropping a nuclear weapon, is there a tactic you think we might use that would not be better managed from a forward base rather than from many more thousands of kilometers away?

And just to try something different, spare us your opinions on my military acumen and try to answer the question directly and honestly.

Bomb the shit out of them and cruise missile the shit out of them. You don't need nukes to do the job. Foot soldiers is the worst way to get it done. But they are great if you are into Nation Building because you have a base of operations for it.

 

[uptower]

Would anybody bet about the time when the Taliban control Afganistan again?

The Pentagon has already estimated 90 days tops, with Kabul sounded in a month.

 

[Rumpelstil]

This Tuesday, no later than 3pm local time.

We will see!

 

[NatMorton]

Bomb the shit out of them and cruise missile the shit out of them. You don't need nukes to do the job. Foot soldiers is the worst way to get it done. But they are great if you are into Nation Building because you have a base of operations for it.

Foot soldiers did a fine job killing Osama Bin Laden and allowed us to verify the kill. A cruise missile from afar would have left doubts.

Again, the approach you take depends on the objectives you have.

 

[jnug]

Foot soldiers did a fine job killing Osama Bin Laden and allowed us to verify the kill. A cruise missile from afar would have left doubts.

Again, the approach you take depends on the objectives you have.

Find the one guy you want kill in Afghanistan and I might agree with it were it not for the fact that we helicoptered into Pakistan to get bin Ladin and we would have to airlift in to assassinate whomever you are thinking about in Afghanistan as well. Do you think we are going to drive over from your ultra-base to assassinate somebody?

By the way, how are you going to protect your air assets on your Ultra-base surrounded on all sides. Are you going to put a dome over the place?

 

[uptower]

You're making no sense. I'm not arguing the strategy of last the 20 years as worked. Is there a reason you keep arguing against what is not in the OP?

This you bro?

IMO, that gives us the justification we need to do the following:

• Find the most strategically placed 100 square mile patch of ground and Afghanistan and seize it. Voila, it's US soil.
• Construct on that land a permanent, fortified military base that no pack of Taliban regulars in their right mind would attack.
• Use that base as a platform to seek and destroy anything in Afghanistan deemed a threat to the United States. A would-be Bin Ladin Jr. sets up a camp in the hills? Flatten them.
• Respond to any harm done to American property or lives with a disproportionate response. Primitive cultures exploit weakness and respect strength. Act in ways they can understand.
• Do what we can to encourage the Afghan government -- whoever it turns out to be -- to move toward modernity, but don't risk a single US soldier's life to do it.

Far from a perfect solution, but if there was ever an environment where "peace through strength" would be effective, this is it.

This is exactly what has been tried for the past two decades. It hasn't worked.

Now to address the OP question, "What should have been done?" Well, my opinion now is not the one I held at the time.

In late 2001 I was as angry as anyone else about 9/11. I had heard of the Taliban and knew they had controlled the country for a few years but until Sept 11 hadn't been aware of Al Qaeda. To me the solution was obvious: crush Al Qaeda, and punish the Taliban for harboring them by removing it from power. Two birds with one stone. A short occupation (maybe 2-5 years) and reconstruction and the country would be back on its feet. After all nobody liked the last guys, right? Well apparently many did.

The Taliban had broad popular support and still does. It simply went underground and waged a classic guerrilla war - not just the obvious hit-and-run tactics of the military weak against the strong - but of hiding amongst the people, supported by the people, biding its time and waiting us out. bases and walls don't stop that, they probably help, more than hinder. I didn't think the taliban had the support. They clearly do.

So what should have been done at the start? Well now, in hindsight I subscribe to the idea that perhaps the US should have just gone in, whipped Al Qaeda and the Taliban and left after Kabul was retaken. Keep it the same till about November or December 2001, then just leave. Let the Northern alliance and other warlords slug it out, or whatever. They could have liaised with friendlies to continue the hunt for Bin laden and engaged in the odd special ops to strike at lingering AQ targets.

The coalition would have been derided for leaving a mess and 'not finishing the job' but twenty years later - after all that blood and treasure - the result is the same.

Or maybe at least Obama should have cut and run after bin Laden's death, but that was still ten years in. Then as now I suppose, better late than never...

 

[jnug]

By the way, the whole notion of an Ultra-base surrounded on all aides is being played out before our very eyes right now. What is the current estimate for how long Kabul will be able to hold out once surrounded?

 

[rickc]

You're just not thinking clearly. Let's suppose three years from now we learned of a terrorist cell in Afghanistan and decided they needed to be taken out. The decision is a given, and now it's just about how. Would we have more or fewer options with a forward presence in the area? Short of dropping a nuclear weapon, is there a tactic you think we might use that would not be better managed from a forward base rather than from many more thousands of kilometers away?

And just to try something different, spare us your opinions on my military acumen and try to answer the question directly and honestly.

I see no reason to spend the money and put the lives of our young men and women in harms way to maintain a necessarly heavily fortified base in hostile territory just on the chance that terrorist may move back in. If that were true I can think of a dozen other places we need them.

With satellite surveillance and drones we can certainly see what is up without putting anyone in harms way. We can send an air strike all the way from Nebraska there that will make their lives miserable. Chasing them around in those mountains with all the caves and hideouts we have already found to be a futile endeavor.

I say the whole Afganistan debacle was another Dick & Jr. Disaster from the start. None of them took Afghanistan's history or topography into their plan. This end was inevitable.

 

[NatMorton]

Find the one guy you want kill in Afghanistan and I might agree with it were it not for the fact that we helicoptered into Pakistan to get bin Ladin and we would have to airlift in to assassinate whomever you are thinking about in Afghanistan as well. Do you think we are going to drive over from your ultra-base to assassinate somebody?

By the way, how are you going to protect your air assets on your Ultra-base surrounded on all sides. Are you going to put a dome over the place?

Just like the other poster, you should cool your jets and think. Consider several tactics we might use to take out a terrorist organization or leader. Might be a guided missile. Might be an airstrike. Might be an elite kill squad choppered in. Whatever you can come up with.

Now, for each of those in turn, ask yourself if it would be better staged from a secured forward base in the area or from half a continent away.

 

[NatMorton]

By the way, the whole notion of an Ultra-base surrounded on all aides is being played out before our very eyes right now. What is the current estimate for how long Kabul will be able to hold out once surrounded?

Kabul is not being defended (or if it is, it soon won't be).

 

[NatMorton]

I see no reason to spend the money and put the lives of our young men and women in harms way to maintain a necessarly heavily fortified base in hostile territory just on the chance that terrorist may move back in. If that were true I can think of a dozen other places we need them.

With satellite surveillance and drones we can certainly see what is up without putting anyone in harms way. We can send an air strike all the way from Nebraska there that will make their lives miserable. Chasing them around in those mountains with all the caves and hideouts we have already found to be a futile endeavor.

I say the whole Afganistan debacle was another Dick & Jr. Disaster from the start. None of them took Afghanistan's history or topography into their plan. This end was inevitable.

That might be the first credible counterargument lodged here. If we think it unlikely the Taliban will make trouble for us once they're running the entire country, then an argument can be made the resources are better applied elsewhere. That said, I think they're zealots and are likely to begin helping those who wish to do harm to The Great Satan.

 

[uptower]

would be better staged from a secured forward base in the area or from half a continent away.

That base could be in a nearby country - or Diego Garcia.

America could have stayed engaged in Afghanistan without being in Afghanistan. At least till AQ was finished off.

 

[jnug]

Just like the other poster, you should cool your jets and think. Consider several tactics we might use to take out a terrorist organization or leader. Might be a guided missile. Might be an airstrike. Might be an elite kill squad choppered in. Whatever you can come up with.

Now, for each of those in turn, ask yourself if it would be better staged from a secured forward base in the area or from half a continent away.

Good for you. How much better staged if at all. Now you tell me exactly how you have quantified that advantage being in country and exactly what you are willing to spend to maintain it.

 

[NatMorton]

That base could be in a nearby country - or Diego Garcia.

America could have stayed engaged in Afghanistan without being in Afghanistan. At least till AQ was finished off.

I agree, and said so earlier. If we can position the base in a close yet friendly country, that is, of course, a better option. The larger point remains. I think we'll need a significant military presence in the area, whether we rent the space from a friend or seize it from Afghanistan.

 

[NatMorton]

Good for you. How much better staged if at all. Now you tell me exactly how you have quantified that advantage being in country and exactly what you are willing to spend to maintain it.

Do you want to try and reword that answer? It's unclear what you're trying to say.

 

[jnug]

Kabul is not being defended (or if it is, it soon won't be).

Now that is a hell of a post. Do you think you made some point here.

 

[jnug]

Do you want to try and reword that answer? It's unclear what you're trying to say.

In other words you have not quantified the advantage you perceive you would achieve and you don't know much you would be willing to spend to maintain it. In other words VooDoo strategic planning.

 

[NatMorton]

Now that is a hell of a post. Do you think you made some point here.

Yes. Comparing the idea expressed in the OP to the present status of Kabul is, as you did in post 259, is nonsense. The two scenarios have almost nothing in common.

 

[NatMorton]

In other words you have not quantified the advantage you perceive you would achieve and you don't know much you would be willing to spend to maintain it. In other words VooDoo strategic planning.

Now you're dodging questions. Very telling.

 

[jnug]

Yes. Comparing the idea expressed in the OP to the present status of Kabul is, as you did in post 259, is nonsense. The two scenarios have almost nothing in common.

Surrounded is surrounded. Quite applicable in both scenarios.

 

[jnug]

Now you're dodging questions. Very telling.

You are the one dodging the questions. Are you telling me you don't know what the word "quantified" means or maybe you don't know what the word "maintain" means.

 

[jnug]

That might be the first credible counterargument lodged here. If we think it unlikely the Taliban will make trouble for us once they're running the entire country, then an argument can be made the resources are better applied elsewhere. That said, I think they're zealots and are likely to begin helping those who wish to do harm to The Great Satan.

The Taliban has never shown any interest in International terror. They are not ISIS or Al Qaeda.

 

[NatMorton]

Surrounded is surrounded. Quite applicable in both scenarios.

No, not even close. What do you think the Taliban could possibly do to surround and then capture a large-scale, fully defended, fully armed US military base.