[did you know] There's a war still going on in Afghanistan

The operation in Afghanistan is taking a long time, just as our current Commander in Chief warned us. We need to go slowly, so American casualties are kept to a minimum.

 

no we need to send about 20,000 troops from iraq to afghanistan to help cleanup the rebels and left over taliban.

the building of the afghanistan state is what will take a lot of time, but cleaning up these rebels should not go on for any extended period of time. that would be the worst thing for stability in afghanistan.

 

Nope. I got turned down last week for National Guard duty. They said at 37, I am too old to help.

 

I am.

We're going to be there for quite a while, and these flare-ups are going to happen. Pockets of Taliban/Al Qaeda and unruly warlords are going to pop up and try to make some noise. We will pummel them every time they do. The main battle has been won, but it's going to be a long mopping-up operation.

Keep in mind that the primary objective (aside from getting bin Laden personally) has been achieved: Afghanistan is no longer a sanctuary for Al Qaedaand the Taliban. They are still there, yes, but they can't do too much planning or preparation for strikes against us while they're hiding in caves trying not to be noticed by the 82nd Airborne division...

 

why should it take a long time? it is only going to take a long time because we won't commit enough troops to the region. we have to occupy almost every decent size town there with some sort of military forces to stop the warlords from taking back over.

if we had 30,000 guys over there the warlords would almost be gone by now because they would have nowhere to hide.

 

robbie380:

If we sent over 80,000+ troops, then we could certainly get more coverage - more combat power is not needed, more coverage might be - but then we'd run into the same problem that the Soviets did: we would appear as an occupying force, and Afghan sentiment would probably quickly turn against us. And even if it didn't it would still take a while to root everyone out - it just takes time to scour the mountains for the bad guys, and going over it in one large sweep won't do. Because of the nature of the cave systems, which would take years to even explore, it could still go on practically forever even with a huge military presence there. They simply hide somewhere else when they see the Americans coming.

As it is, we maintain a relatively small force there that goes on patrols and raids - which is all that we really need - without appearing to try to control things. Any more would probably be counterproductive. Their bases have all been destroyed, and when they try to congregate we nail them, so all you really have is small, isolated pockets that keep springing up... What we do now is basically pest control - we destroy their little sanctuaries when we find them, and kill the bugs when they pop their heads out of the woodwork. Unless we are prepared to tear the house up (over and over again), that is the best game plan there is.

And it works.

 

You are being silly. George Bush is our Commander in Chief, because we, the people, are the government. Your semantic games don't win you any points.

 

I completely missed how we are compared to the Soviets. If I remember correctly the Soviets were trying to control Afghanistan. We are trying to create a stable free democratic state. There is a significant difference. We are not leaching of their people...we are giving them food and aid. I mean that possibility of the Afghans equating us to the Soviets is completely off base. The troops are not telling people how to run their lives. The people do understand when someone is trying to help protect them from someone who is trying to run their lives (the warlords).

And I didn't say 80,000 that would be ridiculously too big. We need more coverage against the warlords and more troops to help create a stable environment and infrastructure for democracy by protecting villages from warlords. Something similar to what we did in Kosovo. The people were welcoming us because they knew we were there to protect them. The Afghans are not going to confuse us with conquerors because we aren't acting like conquerors. If we were forcing them to repay us for the war to rid them of the Taliban then you might have a point, but we are not.

 

You and I know that, yes. But the average Afghani is not going to just take our word for it. When he sees American troops on every street corner checking IDs and American columns racing all over the countryside - what do you think he's going to think? They don't want foreign troops there. They do not just automatically assume that we are friendly, no matter what we want them to think.

We keep a small force there because it is easier to keep out of sight. And because a larger one is really not necessary.

To us, yes. But to them it is not. They have never had a benevolent foreign military force in their country before - why assume that they trust our good intentions, even when they see our good deeds? They trust no one. That is an Afghan trait as sure as making money is an American one.

I know, you said 20,000. That is still more than we need, and it would be far more visible. We want less visibility there, not more.

What do you want these extra 20,000 troops to do? As I said, we don't need any more combat power; more coverage may help. But if you're going for coverage (and we are purposefully not) you'd need another 100,000 at least to really make a difference. Those mountain ranges are huge, and there are thousands of caves ranging from tiny one-man holes in the cliff to vast hidden fortresses. iIt would take a huge army years (maybe decades) to search them all.

What we do now is seal the caves when we find them (and we've found alot of them) and attack the bad guys when we find them or they come out to play. When they come out of their caves we nail them. Who cares what they do when they're sitting in their caves? Plotting? So what, they're still going to die if they come out of their caves and try anything substantial.

8,000 airborne troops backed by massive airpower is plenty enough to deal with any warlords there. When they make too much noise we nail them too, as we have on several occasions.

As for building infrastructure, we need to throw more money at that. And civilians, not soldiers. That is one area where I think we are dangerously lacking - not enough money is being poured into reconstructing civilian infrastructure. Their reasoning is probably that they would want to wait for a more stable environment to arise before they pour billions into infrastructure that could easily be destroyed, though. There is some merit to that idea, but of course, that stability probably won't arise until some money is thrown into infrastructure... you get the idea.

The Afghans could very easily confuse us with conquerors if we increased our troop presence too much. Where we station troops we inevitably take a certain degree of control - for force protection if nothing else. And don't forget that they have *no* experience with friendly foreign militaries. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because it is obvious to us that we are there to help them and not to conquer, that they will see it that way, too.

 

More than anything else, I think alot of this has to do with the fact that the country has basically been bombed into a pile of rubble since the early 70's. The 'void' of structure seeks to resolve itself in the way that nature abhors a vaccum. The fact that we're still there shows that at least we have the decency to show some commentment to our pledge to help rebuild the country.

 

hey...remember when the media was telling us how unsuccessful the campaign in afghanistan would be...how we would get bogged down like the soviets before us?? how we would lose thousands of men in intense cave fighting. i think at last count, we've lost 200 or so men...some of those are from our own military accidents.

kinda like when the media told us that the gulf war would spark wwiii...and how tough the iraqi republic guard was...how surprised the media must have been when those same troops were surrendering...TO THEM!!

 

No, I don't remember that at all.

 

You should look back and see what the Soviets were saying in '79...Pretty similar initial rhetoric.

I agree there is little cause for alarm yet, especially as the US has ( wisely ) stayed with small insertion teams rather than larger groups which create resentment, but the longer we stay there, the more it will seem like the same old same old for the Afghani people. If we are still there in 3-5 years, we will have become the latest enemy of theirs.

 

Go back and read the NY Times (among others), the word "quagmire" was used incessantly.

 

We have lost 26 soldiers in Enduring Freedom so far, MadMax.

Over the past 13 years we have lost fewer than 300 soldiers in 3 wars (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq) and 3 major interventions (Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti). Not a bad track record. Actually, it has no historical precedent.

We have lost more civilians than soldiers. Don't you just love the trends we're seeing? Hell, I'm safer than you guys...

 

wow....thanks for the correction, treeman.