How a Zombie Wargame Explains Our Fail War in Afghanistan

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

Winning 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.

[Longdan]

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

[Jack Nastyface]

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.

 

[Longdan]

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.

[Jack Nastyface]

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?

[Longdan]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

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.

[Jack Nastyface]

@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 

[bayonetbrant]

^^ 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.

[DicedT]

Don't fret about insulting zombies, Jack.

It's not like they're thin-skinned!

Michael

[GDS_Starfury]

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.

there is no winning in A-stan.  not for us, not for the Russians, not for anyone for a few thousand years.

[LongBlade]

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.

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.

[Longdan]

Buy their heroin instead of burning it.  Use it to put your politicians to sleep
before they borrow y'all into oblivion.

[Arctic Blast]

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.

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.