what do you guys think of the new Afghan strategy?

I was thinking about similarities between A-stan and Vietnam, and I realized that Afghanistan is really in a power vacuum. The Taliban is not popular enough or militarily strong enough to impose it's will on the country, the central government is too incompetent and weak to impose its will on the country, and the US is too foreign and constrained by military, political and economic facts to impose its will on the country. Whoever fills the vacuum will win. The Taliban has an advantage; an organization like the Taliban moves into that sort of an environment somewhat by default, although various factors can slow their progress. The US and the central government on the other hand have to make a major effort to fill the vacuum.

Afghans may or may not like the Taliban but when you see your people being killed on a daily basis, there's no surprise support for the Taliban, or any groups seen to be fighting NATO, will increase in time.

Mr T said:

People said Iraq was the new Vietnam too - they were proven wrong. 'Course Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, is poorer, has worse infrastructure, etc.

Most Afghanis don't want the Taliban back, they're just unsure of their government. There's still plenty of chances to make things stable enough for Afghanis to deal with things themselves - I certainly like the plan of focusing military power to protect population centres rather than holding empty/nearly empty territory.

We'll have to see what happens.

Click to expand...

you only believe US media said, you seems not read my whole article, I already explained many trouble,the fact is not so optimistic,the U.S troop still stay in Irag, the U.S millitary many times asked send more troops to Irag,talk back Afghanis, if the U,S withdraw the troops now, Taliban will be back just like Soviet Union out of Afghanis before.
the U.S fight for the elimination of the Taliban is right, but the US should address the issue of survival of the Afghan people, and the entire international community to cooperate, not only force.

iraq was another vietnam, strategically speaking it did many of the same damage to the US. monumental resources were devoted, strategic focus was derailed, alliances disintegrated...the higher oil price also helped Russia's economy, and Iran too was a huge beneficiary from the war, there is the revival of taliban, and of course China also got a huge break. but afghanistan was somewhat in a better situation internationally because 9/11 gave it a degree of legitimacy. but that doesnt mean the coalition will remain faithful forever, i think obama is under pressure from his allies too to end the combat mission quickly. there is a lack of first hand account of how well US policies are being implemented in afghanistan and how much of the population have benefitted from it, especially compared to the taliban. this is surely the most crucial aspect because if the taliban is establishing effective local governing institutions, that'd be more troublesome than any sort of military threat they could pose.

The fundamental problem of Afghanistan, like in many countries in Africa, is tribalism. Doesn't matter what is the name, Taliban, or whatever, so long you got a tribal social order its going to be both a hotbed for fundamentalism and drugs.

One of the ways to counter tribalism is a strong central government, even to the point of acting oppressive. I honestly don't seem to see much of a choice.

crobato said:

The fundamental problem of Afghanistan, like in many countries in Africa, is tribalism. Doesn't matter what is the name, Taliban, or whatever, so long you got a tribal social order its going to be both a hotbed for fundamentalism and drugs.

One of the ways to counter tribalism is a strong central government, even to the point of acting oppressive. I honestly don't seem to see much of a choice.

Click to expand...

yeah i think i understand what you are talkin about there. i read some newspaper that joked about karzai being the mayor of kabul lol. but i dont think constructing a strong centralized government is a viable option right now. for one thing it'd certainly alienate those warlords that US has tried so hard to appease. to me the best exit strategy should be getting taliban involved as much as possible, and try to create a political equilibrium that would last for a good while before it inevitably collapses (there is just no way that the US can build a sustainable regime under such condition) so at least washington wont take too much of a blame.

Crobato said, "The fundamental problem of Afghanistan, like in many countries in Africa, is tribalism. Doesn't matter what is the name, Taliban, or whatever, so long you got a tribal social order its going to be both a hotbed for fundamentalism and drugs.

"One of the ways to counter tribalism is a strong central government, even to the point of acting oppressive. I honestly don't seem to see much of a choice."

****************

Tribalism doesn't lead to a hotbed of drugs (but it does lead to provincialism). It's usually the other way around. Tribalism wipes out drug abuse. When the Muslim extremists had unchallenged power in Afghanistan, opium production and other drugs decreased dramatically. Opium production and other drug production have skyrocketed ever since the US military tried to control Afghanistan.

Tribes are more likely than modern communities (such as interconnected hamlets, towns, cities, and metropolises) to be harsh and cold-hearted towards drug addicts, because tribes tend to be less productive than modern communities. Tribes can't put up with social dead-weights as well as modern communities.

However, I've never been to Afghanistan and don't plan on going there any time soon, so I could be wrong. I am getting my info on various news sources and most agree that the US military policies intentionally and accidentally promote opium and other drugs. I read the same situation happened in Vietnam, Colombia, and other areas.


In regards to strongman rulers, I agree that tribal Afghanistan needs a strongman ruler like the Taliban system. I would like to add the phenomenon of "Only-I-can-beat-up-my-little-bro." Afghanis are probably more tolerant of attacking each other than foreigners attacking them. Same with Americans/every social group. Compared to terrorism, Americans have a MUCH higher rate of death and suffering from lousy/junk foods from corporations, lazy lifestyles, car accidents, and criminals. Yet, Americans are MUCH more lenient towards unscrupulous corporations, bad drivers, and criminals than towards terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents/rebel alliance/whatever. The Afghani strongman and his command system has to truly arise from the Afghani people and NOT from foreign strings.

Mr T said:

People said Iraq was the new Vietnam too - they were proven wrong. 'Course Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, is poorer, has worse infrastructure, etc.

Click to expand...

Well, Iraq is only barely Asia while Afghanistan is full-on Asia and as we all know starting a land war in Asia is one of the classic blunders.

They've completely underestimated the difficulty of the task in hand.The British had trouble in the 19th century, as with the Russians over a century later, with an army over 3x the size of the current Nato forces.

Currently this piecemeal increment of troop numbers is giving time for the Taliban to improve their fighting techniques. IMHO total war with the use of brute force is whats needed when doing battle with a culture locked in a medieval timewarp.

Infra_Man99 said:

****************


Tribes are more likely than modern communities (such as interconnected hamlets, towns, cities, and metropolises) to be harsh and cold-hearted towards drug addicts, because tribes tend to be less productive than modern communities. Tribes can't put up with social dead-weights as well as modern communities.

However, I've never been to Afghanistan and don't plan on going there any time soon, so I could be wrong. I am getting my info on various news sources and most agree that the US military policies intentionally and accidentally promote opium and other drugs. I read the same situation happened in Vietnam, Colombia, and other areas.


.

Click to expand...

Opium cultivation was always a central part of the Afghan economy due to the paucity of other viable crops, war or no war.

Edit: Im referring to the period from the Soviet invasion to the present.