US Halts Joint Afghan Ops

[LongBlade]

Not a good sign things are going well there.

The U.S. military has suspended the bulk of joint field operations with Afghan troops amid a wave of so-called insider attacks and concern about protests over an anti-Islam film.

Fox News has learned that while U.S. troops are still patrolling, as are the Afghans, the two sides are not running operations together for the time being without special approval.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/us-concerned-about-impact-afghan-insider-attacks-on-troops-panetta-says/

[Martok]

This news doesn't exactly come as a galloping shock.  It was only a matter of time before it happened...and probably none too soon, quite frankly. 

[MIGMaster]

Graveyard of empires indeed. I figure if the Russians couldn't maintain their version of order with their rather lax rules of engagement then a democracy would be screwed.

[LongBlade]

Graveyard of empires indeed. I figure if the Russians couldn't maintain their version of order with their rather lax rules of engagement then a democracy would be screwed.

Our light footprint initially worked there. But somehow between 2001 and 2004 we lost it. I've not heard a good AAR of why, beyond "Iraq." That may or may not be correct, but the explanation, even if correct, is insufficient.

[Windigo]

the taliban adapted, we haven't ...

its still a killing ground for us .... the tali/radicals come in and then they die

I think of it as a lure area with Western Democracies using humans as bait to bring into Afghanistan the radicals from the muslim world (rather than over here)

As a side note, I remember the Lebanon truck bombing of a Marine base of operations ... that was far worse w.r.t. the loss of life

[Arctic Blast]

Graveyard of empires indeed. I figure if the Russians couldn't maintain their version of order with their rather lax rules of engagement then a democracy would be screwed.

Our light footprint initially worked there. But somehow between 2001 and 2004 we lost it. I've not heard a good AAR of why, beyond "Iraq." That may or may not be correct, but the explanation, even if correct, is insufficient.

I think a big part of the problem is how the initial war was fought. Sure, letting the factional militias of the various warlords be the bulk of allied forces was a great way to keep Western involvement low, but it also meant that those warlords were then armed to the teeth at the end and pretty much in power by default. Instead of anything resembling a unified nation resulting, you have splintered little provinces all with their own leader at the top. And it isn't like some of these guys are that far off from where the Taliban were...they just wanted to be the ones in charge.

Couple that with Western Pakistan being a lawless frontier land that the army won't even roll in to, leaving it wide open for pretty much anyone and everyone who wants to flow in to Afghanistan being able to, and you don't exactly have a recipe for stability.

[eyebiter]

The US has forgotten counterinsurgency lessons learned in Vietnam?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19634728

"In Afghanistan, the war continues - but that is a place of even lower promise. The Afghan government remains famously corrupt and appears either unwilling or unable to make changes. "