More On Afghanistan

Via Hershel at Captain's Journal - one of the most insightful blogs when it comes to war and all things military.

We learn several things from this article. First we learn the limitations of Woodward’s reporting, or the editing at the Washington Post, or both. This report is monumental. Obama ran against the campaign in Iraq, unequivocally stating that the troops needed to be in Afghanistan. This was stated too many times to count, in too many different venues and publications to recite. It’s now clear that he will allow somewhat less than 70,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan at any one time, regardless of what might have been advocated half a year earlier.

Comments

[mark l.]

this whole operation is NOT designed to fight for Afghanistan...

we are trying to secure the most logical place to garrison up, which provides access and rapid response to the Pakistani nukes.

Helmand province is southern Afhganistan, while the heavy concentration of taliban is in the NE section of the country. The link provides that the plan for winning in AG calls for 700,000 troops. Maybe a high estimate, but no fewer than 500k would be needed, along with about 4 trillion in infrastructure investment to bring it up to speed with Iraq.

It appears that obama just wants to create a province where he can postion troops indefintely.

Caveat?

The biggest is the fact that a garrison of US military will become an island. No one gets off, no one gets in, while we sit and wait. Always wondered where a nuclear bomb could be used directly and specifcally on a large US military force with minimal devastation for civilians/non-military.

This is now the place. If obama is waiting for nukes to be siezed in pk, he might want to consider the potential that some could be sent his way. Our placement in the hinterland of a country in the ME abrogates the need for our enemies to find a complex delivery system. We have entered a period where our garrison is now pinned by its primary function...we don't leave until the nukes in pakistan are resolved, while simultaneously hoping that the taliban is too weak to launch a counter attack on a fixed position with an extraordinarily heavy concetration of US forces.

The exit strategy?
there is none. we sit and wait as we did in korea. the difference is that in South Korea, we were mixed in with the civilians and military, and any attack on our forces is also an attack on the civilians. A bonus outcome if the taliban does gain access to a nuke and uses it in a southern province?

the value of the opium they are producing elsewhere triples in value.

I have seen this strategy of garrisonning soldiers before...Soviet/Afghan War. Didn't go so well for the occupier, and worth noting that the US was more than willing to provide the technical support. I have no doubt that in the next 3-8 years, the taliban will be given the means to produce a nuke, if not given one outright.

I won't go so far as to say that the "War is lost", but I can definitively say that the War, in its current format, can NEVER be won.

[mark l.]

why not use missle defense in Afghanistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

I also note that NK is testing scuds, as opposed to three stage rockets.
garrison style setup in Afghanistan has put us in their wheelhouse.

The left was curious about exit strategies and timetables all during the war in Iraq. I do hope they share the messiah answers to these questions when he provides them. I'm sure they'll be as patient with obama as they were with bush.

for those scoring at home, we have 719 soldiers dead in Afghanistan...over 1200 if you count the Coaltion of the Willing. If they were moving towards success, it wouldn't be half as troubling as it is now.

now I know why the messiah has his questions screened in advance, and refuses questions about afghanistan. wouldn't it be a feat if he could go 8 years without mentioning that his policy in AG is useless?

[Sally]

Wasn't Rumsfeld criticized for this very thing? Trying to win both the war and the peace in Iraq with a "lean and mean" approach and ignoring military leaders who knew better? When will the generals, like Zinni and Baptiste and Shinseki and Newbold and Eaton, speak out against this current flawed plan?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html