Progress in Afghanistan

This situation in Afghanistan deserves it's own thread, since although it is one of two states in which which the US military is involved in direct conflict with entities designated as terrorists in the 'War on Terror', it is quite different from Iraq.

In an article, Joel Fitzgibbon, Australia's new Minister for Defense, outlines the challenge and the need for a strategic plan to secure democracy and stability in Afghanistan.

http://www.the-diplomat.com/article.aspx?aeid=5804

I don't see any recent posts relating to progress in Afghanistan.

This thread was started on March 17, 2008 - 4 years ago. A major component of this thread is "the challenge and the need for a strategic plan to secure democracy and stability in Afghanistan". If there aren't any posts related to progress - might it be possible there still isn't a viable plan in place - after 4 years of observance by us?

...

Thinking like a realist (as opposed to a Paulite), I suppose it's all well and good to be a global hegemon, world policemen and indispensable force for good. But it would be a welcome change to occasionally win one of these wars we are always getting into, and then actually benefit from it so we can pay the bills. ...

Good grief, what is your definition of "win"? Iraq? Libya? Kuwait/Gulf I? Bosnia? Panama? None of those qualify?

We've been fighting a bunch of expensive, losing wars all over the world for political/ideological reasons. Now it's time for good old-fashioned plunder and profit! <---Winning!

The realist's winnable war from which we could quickly profit:
- Attack and invade nearby, weakly defended and underpopulated Canada.
- Seize and profit from the gold, oil, uranium, bauxite, rare-earth minerals, timber, fisheries, plentiful fresh water and polar access.

Facetiously submitted,
Steve

Are you trying to win over my inner Viking?

We haven't really done much to win a war since WW2. We reclaimed Europe, North Africa, Mid-East, and Far East in 4 years. We didn't do it by being polite when we went to war. Within a few decades, most of the places we leveled are our allies (Germany, Japan, etc.). You shoot from a holy building and it becomes dust. Ever look at the pictures of WWI and WWII that show bombed out churches, even the ones for our Christian religions? Why waste time arguing with the nuts over this? Make a clear statement we'll total destroy any structure you shoot at us from regardless of its religious significance. The mid-East may never like us, but IMO, they better damn well fear us.

Blunt force ruthlessness can work against an organized force, but doesn't work against insurgencies. See Iraq, where much of the insurgency was kicked off by agitators who purposely engaged from within otherwise friendly places to draw just the kind of blunt force response you describe.

When I read through Galteeth's link - and the commander says it's too dangerous to go and look for the shooters - I have to wonder what will motivate them?

I think part of the problem there is the "bad guys" aren't particularly afraid of dying since they are religious fanatics. The "good guys" are slightly more sane and thus afraid of dying.

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.

The Afghan police certainly seem well-informed about the political realities of the situation.

By contrast, the article makes clear how the US leadership lies and spins to the US population. So I'm surprised people don't get more upset about that aspect of what the article claims.

Is it really a matter of leadership lies and spins or is it a matter of the media picking and choosing their reports?