http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/28/sometimes_they_come_back
This is a good article. I wish it were longer.
It would have to be much longer as it is far too simplistic. There are probably many reinforcing loops as well as countering loops. The assumption that they all want to kill/eat westerners is easily false. Things that would reinforce a desire to fight would be a death in the family seen related to the war, a home invasion by troops, a bleak existence that is relieved by a fiery sermon, etc. Things that would balance are a potentially more secure existence, improving city conditions, work, access to better imported food, etc.
I think the benefit of a strike on an insurgent leader outweighs the angering of neighbours over the mess. They probably knew he was a POS, they probably dont care. Its the other factors along with those that can speak for or against that will sway them.
while the reasons behind the extra spawning are certainly different, as the grunt on the ground with the grenade launcher in-hand, the effect is probably remarkably similar.
in fact, you might could also re-shoot Blackhawk Down with zombies instead of Somalis and not have to change too much of the movie...
What was our real war goal in Afghanistan? Revenge for 9/11? Nation building? Divide and conqueror? Or the hope with the Taliban and Afghan/Pakistani governments fighting each other they will leave the US alone?
Quote from: eyebiter on January 30, 2013, 07:43:54 AMWhat was our real war goal in Afghanistan?
dingdingdingdingdingdingding
give that man a prize!
If we'd all walked away as soon as the Bin Laden raid was done, no one would've said a thing, and we would've completely controlled the "revenge" narrative and history would paint it as a very expensive, and very overblown success story.
But lemme tell you - the 'mission creep' of Afghanistan rivals any 'mission creep' that anyone ever complained about in the 2000 elections when referring to Somalia or the Balkans.
I'd love to hear Airborne Rifles' opinions on the topic, but I guess he's a bit pre-occupied these days :)
I have never given much thought to how a real-world conflict my resemble a zombie game, but Brant's comment about Black Hawk Down rings true.
In my reading of history, everyone has something of value they want to protect. Finding that leverage point and focusing on it until your enemy quits is pretty much the conduct of war.
During WWII, it required we turn the Axis nations into a pile of rocks. In Afghanistan, the country never evolved beyond a pile of rocks. So we need to find something else of value to use as a leverage point to convince the bad guys that we're not worth fighting.
I'm not sure what that might be, but it seems to me that identifying those objectives is the piece that is missing in being able to find success during this conflict.
Somebody had the idea of "hearts and minds" a while back. For the record the concept predated
the Viet Nam conflict. If you are not interested in finding out what they want and providing it better
than the current regime..... do not go there. Just kill them from afar if you wish or if it pleases you.
They will not start to like you and quit fighting. What I find really sad is that so many people try
so hard to meet the hearts and minds ideal and are thwarted by their own organisations and the general
apathy that seems to leak in from above or from the electorate. Killing half of them and giving the
surviving half a candy bar does not make a 50/50 deal. This idea of shooting democracy and good government
into foreigners doesn't work very well. They get all resentful and pissy. The whole Afghanistan thing was sold
as one concept (look at how many who came to participate had sidestepped Iraq) and turned into just another
war against people who did not want us in their country. The soldiers from the base here were getting on planes
to go there in the end of 2001 and a goodly number of them got killed including some friends. They are not
all that glad they went seeing the result.
Brant nailed it better than I did!
Mike
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 30, 2013, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: eyebiter on January 30, 2013, 07:43:54 AMWhat was our real war goal in Afghanistan?
dingdingdingdingdingdingding
give that man a prize!
If we'd all walked away as soon as the Bin Laden raid was done, no one would've said a thing, and we would've completely controlled the "revenge" narrative and history would paint it as a very expensive, and very overblown success story.
But lemme tell you - the 'mission creep' of Afghanistan rivals any 'mission creep' that anyone ever complained about in the 2000 elections when referring to Somalia or the Balkans.
I'd love to hear Airborne Rifles' opinions on the topic, but I guess he's a bit pre-occupied these days :)
It doesn't matter if the mission creep came from politicians, generals or business activists wanting new markets. The 'revenge narrative' would only hold if it was only Afghanistan. As soon as Iraq was thrown in it was clear to the whole world it was an opportunity for 'mission creep'.
The underlying goal of the mission creep is the glory of those that advance it, whichever of the 3 groups above had a part. They see their opportunity to change the world by force. It's a fool's life story. They will beat their head against this never understanding that the chance of success this way is tiny.
Is Iraq or Afghanistan more secular now than before? Are the people going about normal lives or are they joining combat camps?
It will be successful civilian business that changes the region to be less hostile, not military force.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 30, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Is Iraq or Afghanistan more secular now than before? Are the people going about normal lives or are they joining combat camps?
I think you misunderstand the motive behind Iraq War II.
It was sold as Saddam having WMD. Which he did.
But there were other important reasons. Most importantly, it is no longer possible for the world's attention to turn away and Saddam resume acquiring more WMD.
Also, he no longer is threatening his neighbors with hostile intent.
Also, the next time the UN passes a couple dozen resolutions that say, "Don't do that," the target of said resolutions may look back and realize that use of force may follow if the resolutions are ignored.
The fact that the war wasn't universally popular nor that it hasn't delivered a utopia in Iraq doesn't mean there weren't good reasons for it, nor does it mean it was the wrong course of action. It does mean that folks can point out defects and complain it's not ideal, but we can't please everyone.
Does anyone buy that?
I seem to remember Saddam's military was badly smashed. Us jets were enforcing a no-fly zone over the country. Any military action would have been seen immediately. About the only thing he could do was block an Iranian attack.
I buy the narrative that it was about a chance to control Iraqi Oil.
There were plenty of bad reasons to invade Iraq
There were a handful of compelling good reasons to invade Iraq
But I was never convinced of a necessary reason to invade Iraq
That said, once we were there, I was much less concerned with trying to undo something by arguing about justifications than I was interested in discussing the 'success criteria' needed to bring our boys home without handicapping ourselves on the geopolitical front for the next 50 years.
Did he have usable WMD? It was one big Red Herring IMHO and sold for reasons other than those it was painted with.
Why were so many nations quite willing to assist in Afghanistan and took a powder on Iraq? What about the other
tons of conveniently forgotten outright BS? Nobody had a plan about what to do with the place once they had gone
in with guns blazing and declared victory. That is just stupid and dishonest. IMO.
Quote from: Longdan on January 30, 2013, 01:26:13 PMDid he have usable WMD? It was one big Red Herring IMHO and sold for reasons other than those it was painted with.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/29/163659.shtml
Quote from: Longdan on January 30, 2013, 01:26:13 PMNobody had a plan about what to do with the place once they had gone in with guns blazing and declared victory. That is just stupid and dishonest.
it was more the former than the latter
they were honest about not having one
There was unified outrage in NATO countries at the 911 attack. Everyone was ready to put their soldiers into that fight. Congress gave Bush jr powers based on the attack was masterminded in Afghanistan by a Saudi. The reason to change things in Afghanistan was clear. Quickly, most of the fight was diverted to Iraq. Saddam was an ahole, but he had nothing to do with the attack.
If the resources had been focused in Afghanistan maybe it would have been enough for a long term change there. Winning there when the Soviets failed would have been an important sign of western power. The current situation probably emboldened Russia and China. It was a catastrophic blunder.
How do you pull a win from this point? The person that figures that out should get a lavish retirement, maybe a few acres on Hawaii.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 30, 2013, 03:21:27 PMWinning there when the Soviets failed would have been an important sign of western power.
Interesting that this is the dominant narrative, but when the Russians left, there was a stable gov't, women going to school, a halfway reasonable judiciary, and some actual non-narcotic trade.
But when the Russians left, and their support for civil service paychecks left with them, the warlords were able to start buying local officals, and the religion-focused Taliban (incl. many ex-Mooj fighters) started to rise, only w/o any moderating influence from their former Western handlers.
When people compare Afghanistan to "Vietnam for the Russians" they're closer than you realize... both powers left behind a reasonably-functioning gov't that was cut off from aid and assistance from the mothership (Vietnam by a US Congress, and Afghanistan by the fall of the USSR) that helped keep the gov't functioning.
The Southies managed to fight off the 1972 invasion by the North Vietnamese, but by 1975 had exhausted whatever aid we were able to send them, and their economy was unable to generate enough capital to replace it.
The Afghans were able to hold their post-Russian gov't together for a while, but once the gov't money dried up, the police started to evaporate, narco-warlords rose in the law-and-order void and bought off the rest, and there arose a popular movement to counter the kleptocracy. That counter-movement just happened to be a problem for us once they started sheltering a guy trying to blow up our people.
That article about WMD has some interesting things to say.
The problem now is "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."
It seems it was never the catastrophic threat that was portrayed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nKX6luiMINQ
While I have always enjoyed everything that Michael Peck has written, I must admit that I think the "zombie/ COIN" analysis is too flat....and the "Zombie = Somali" reference stated above is unfair.
To wit: despite the fact that both Afghanistan and Somalia are outright "5th world basket-cases", there still exists in these places a personal, cultural, political, racial and tribal history that beguiles a simple explanation of current realities.
Afghani villagers "choose Taliban" because they know the Taliban will still be there in 5 years, and the US won't. The Taliban force villagers to take arms against the US (threatening repercussions that the locals know that the Taliban will make good on) which in turn causes lethal response from US forces. Muslim will protect Muslim because of things like shared faith, background, heritage, of fear of reprisal; no-one was ever going to turn in OBL unless tortured because he was simply "one of their own"...no matter how much of a liability he was.
Not much different with the Somalis. There you have a nation who have been at war with each other for years, and whose daily lives include a struggle against nature and each other to scape by the barest of sustenance. A western POV would suggest that they would welcome a "white knight bearing gifts"...a Somali POV is that outside support is to be looked upon with suspicion, gutted and plundered, and then cast aside.
"They are not like us" is often said by westerners of "the others". I would say they are exactly like us, if we were ever reduced to a lifetime of hardship, isolation and scarcity.
I heartily concur Jack with the addition that foreign exploitation has never been far away historically
in these places. When various foreigners arrive with an air of cultural superiority as well as material wealth
it engenders the same response that similar things do among the American tribes. When these same
rich, snooty foreigners are also perceived as robbers or exploiters it doesn't get better. I think back to when
I was a little boy in my village and the rich people from the Southern tribes would visit with their fancy Cadillacs
and Airstreams generally treating us as vaguely amusing monkeys. They seemed to feel we should throw our first born
under their motor homes but we were resentful and declined.
While I think that you are correct about "historical" connections to foreign explotation, I don't that that arguement bears out in many of the recent conflicts we are seeing.
I think the US and the coalition "did the right thing" in not only going after OBL and AQ, but also the Taliban (who are IMHO some of the worst of the modern thug despots). The problem is how do you fight what is for us a "foreign" war in a land that has only ever known domestic strife, conflict and invasion?
I meant that Afghanistan has been fought over for ever, being the crossroads it is.
Historically somebody has always been trying to exploit its geopolitical position.
A good part of Somalia belonged to the Italians as a colony until 1941.
Jack, you're looking at the 10,000-foot view, and I'm talking about the 10-foot view. When you're a grunt on the ground trying to walk your way out of the Bakara Market, or Sadr City, or Korengal Valley, I can't imagine a better metaphor than a zombie flick. That said, I'll defer to Bison or Airborne Rifles with their on-the-ground experience if they want to share.
@Brant...very true...point taken, and I must humbly offer apologies to you and Michael Peck (author and OP).
I suppose I was responding to the possible tendancy to "dehumanize" the enemy during times of war....a phenomena as old as conflict itself, and one that frequently leads to an under-estimation of opfor capabilities. I know Michael is more scholarly and professional than that, and I should have recognized the comment / article was more about the "experience" of war rather than opfor characterization.
Again, sincere apologies if I drew wrong conclusions, too quickly...
Ever your humble servant,
Jack Nastyface
^^ you're thoughts are certainly valid assessments of the situation, so don't apologize. My only point was trying to draw the distinction between the echelon you were describing and the echelon I thought Michael was describing.
Don't fret about insulting zombies, Jack.
It's not like they're thin-skinned!
Michael
QuoteIf the resources had been focused in Afghanistan maybe it would have been enough for a long term change there. Winning there when the Soviets failed would have been an important sign of western power.
there is no winning in A-stan. not for us, not for the Russians, not for anyone for a few thousand years.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 01, 2013, 06:48:35 PM
QuoteIf the resources had been focused in Afghanistan maybe it would have been enough for a long term change there. Winning there when the Soviets failed would have been an important sign of western power.
there is no winning in A-stan. not for us, not for the Russians, not for anyone for a few thousand years.
I don't think we need to "win" - we just need to convince them that harboring our enemies is a bad idea.
Buy their heroin instead of burning it. Use it to put your politicians to sleep
before they borrow y'all into oblivion.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 01, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 01, 2013, 06:48:35 PM
QuoteIf the resources had been focused in Afghanistan maybe it would have been enough for a long term change there. Winning there when the Soviets failed would have been an important sign of western power.
there is no winning in A-stan. not for us, not for the Russians, not for anyone for a few thousand years.
I don't think we need to "win" - we just need to convince them that harboring our enemies is a bad idea.
That also seems to be going just swimmingly...especially considering their neighbor is currently the one doing it.
Hey sorry, just started reading this thread. I have certainly been busy the past couple weeks but operations have slowed down and I've had a little more "me" time.
I think the article is overly simplistic and doesn't represent what is actually happening here at all, at least in this little corner of Afghanistan. The majority of the Taliban fighters here (a little ways outside Khandahar City) are for the most part as foreign as we are, and by foreign I don't just mean from across the border in Pakistan. Sure there is the contigent of Afghans who fight as well but even they are not usually locals. The fact is that the fighters, weapons, and materials in this area are funded largely by two sources: donations by rich individuals in the Gulf States and proceeds from the poppy harvest which the Taliban infiltrate to guard, harvest, and sell. Last year was a disasterous year for the Taliban in this area because the poppy harvest was poor coupled with the fact that they took serious caualties. That affected their foreign donations which have also trailed off due to the NATO announcement that we are leaving. Right now my unit is trying to figure out what kind of a poppy harvest we are going to have this year to try to detrmine what resources the Taliban will have to fight this summer.
So the problem isn't really the whole idea that when you kill an isurgent you create two more. The problem here is that the local governance and police force are corrupt and ineffective. The biggest initiative right now is actually to arm the local Afghans to police their own villages. Before you gufaw at this, realize all of our intelligence points to the fact that this is the tactic the Taliban fear most. Unfortunatley, these local policemen tend to be less inclined to resist when they are not supplied with fuel and ammunition, a task at which the Afghan government infrastructure is abysmally poor due to corruption, illiteracy, and ineptitude. If the locals can't resist the outside influences then the foreign fighters can come in and demand food, shelter, money, and cooperation. In the end the locals will usually support whichever side they think is going to win.
Anyway, that's the view from this corner of Afghanistan. I'll leave the grand strategy of why we are here and the question of if we can ultimately win or not to others. Just keep in mind that your average Afghan isn't really much different from your average American when it comes down to it. He would really just like to go work his field or go to the market without being shot, or blown up, or shaken down for money to line the pockets of one faction or the other.
Hey thanks for that Airborne. It lines up pretty well with what my friends returning from over there have been saying.
Keep your head down.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on February 02, 2013, 03:29:20 AM
That also seems to be going just swimmingly...especially considering their neighbor is currently the one doing it.
I know. I'm probably wrong, but that's what I think.
I have a friend who simply replies, "They have a very deep bench."
Quote from: LongBlade on February 02, 2013, 12:43:48 PM
Quote from: Arctic Blast on February 02, 2013, 03:29:20 AM
That also seems to be going just swimmingly...especially considering their neighbor is currently the one doing it.
I know. I'm probably wrong, but that's what I think.
I have a friend who simply replies, "They have a very deep bench."
It's also pretty much impossible to do. The government exists in name only once you get outside Kabul. The warlords sure as Hell don't care so long as nobody is messing with them. A unified group that you might stand up against them simply doesn't exist.
On an only marginally related note, I know the Muslim call to prayer can be sung very beautifully, but when I deploy I always seem to end up next to the mosque with the crier who sounds like a dying cat. It gets old and I thought I'd share.
^^ maybe it's just the same guy that they shuffle around to wherever you're deployed ;)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 03, 2013, 11:37:58 AM
^^ maybe it's just the same guy that they shuffle around to wherever you're deployed ;)
My thought was that perhaps it may have been deliberate.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 03, 2013, 11:37:58 AM
^^ maybe it's just the same guy that they shuffle around to wherever you're deployed ;)
More than likely. The guy certainly seems to try to make up for his lack of ability with volume and motivation.
^sounds like my sex life ;D
Nudge...nudge ^^ Say no more old fellow!!