- #36
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 5,612
- 1,759
Czcibor's made the only comment regarding Afghanistan so far, and no one's taken issue with it --- "Stet?" No specific position on "wins or losses?"
"Nation building" was applied successfully as an endgame in Cuba following the Spanish-American War, W. Germany, Japan, and the Philippines following WWII, arguably in some of the "mandated territories" at the end of WWI. It has been tactically attractive for military purposes at various times in various places, with varying degrees of success, Republic of Texas a success, RVN not, ROK unknown as yet, upshot being that military minds don't always want to say "no."
Getting into Afghanistan involves passing through or jumping off from one or more of the neighboring nations, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, and Pakistan. Iran is "out" diplomatically, and the rest excepting Pakistan are out geographically. An ideal scenario, with the cooperation of the Pakistani government would have been to go in, round up the Taliban, and leave the keys under the doormat at the Khyber Pass within six months to a year. The Soviet Union's experience suggests that wouldn't be too likely. Long term cooperation by the Pakistani government was also a very uncertain premise at the time. This brings us to the question, "How does one extract, or at least protect coalition forces from Iranian interference in the event of a fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan?" The Khyber and overland logistics are blocked, and a trapped army might have been more temptation than A-jad and Khameini could resist. "Invade Iraq?" Keeps Teheran looking over both shoulders. Takes Sadam, Uday, and Qusay off the table. Makes a statement. Balances the demographic disparity between Arab Islamic and central Asian Islamic extremist POWs. Opens a second killing ground (my apologies to the pacifists, but "Whack a mole" has already been discussed in another thread by at least one among us). The PR campaign in the UN gave nothing away to Iran IF this was the case. WMDs? Sadam's complicity in bankrolling 9-11? Harboring terrorists? More "red herring?" We won't know for fifty to a hundred years. DoD does pay attention to such details. It's a high stakes game, and you don't play your cards from face up on the table in front of news cameras. Come to think of it, the Pakistanis did close Khyber a couple times over some sort of squabbles, plus a couple fuel and supply convoys being burned. Might not be so far-fetched a concern.
Couple of us definitely feel that Iraq and/or inadequate equipment are proximal causes for "losses."
And, there are a couple of us who aren't buying the "loss" premise.
And the post mortem cliche ---
Bolger? The Wall Street Journal's review http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-review-why-we-lost-by-daniel-p-bolger-1415922914
Invasion of Afghanistan either in a punitive raid, or in an effort at "nation building" was an almost inevitable consequence of "9-11."Czcibor said:(snip re. Iraq) With Afghanistan? USA credibility was at the stake and there was no good move. There were not many targets there that could have been destroyed in a retaliatory air campaign. The only idea that I've heard of that would not involve puting there troops and would have adequate chilling effect for other terrorist harborring regimes, presumably involved using... WMDs. (which would be politically too expensive)
No specific position on "wins or losses."Vanadium 50 said:Every President since at least George H.W. Bush has said we shouldn't get involved in nation building, and every President since at least George H.W. Bush has ended up nation building. The US tries to use the military for this, because they aren't allowed to say "no", (emphasis added: hadn't thought of it this way) but fundamentally, this is not their job: their job is to break things.(snip)
"Nation building" was applied successfully as an endgame in Cuba following the Spanish-American War, W. Germany, Japan, and the Philippines following WWII, arguably in some of the "mandated territories" at the end of WWI. It has been tactically attractive for military purposes at various times in various places, with varying degrees of success, Republic of Texas a success, RVN not, ROK unknown as yet, upshot being that military minds don't always want to say "no."
Getting into Afghanistan involves passing through or jumping off from one or more of the neighboring nations, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, and Pakistan. Iran is "out" diplomatically, and the rest excepting Pakistan are out geographically. An ideal scenario, with the cooperation of the Pakistani government would have been to go in, round up the Taliban, and leave the keys under the doormat at the Khyber Pass within six months to a year. The Soviet Union's experience suggests that wouldn't be too likely. Long term cooperation by the Pakistani government was also a very uncertain premise at the time. This brings us to the question, "How does one extract, or at least protect coalition forces from Iranian interference in the event of a fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan?" The Khyber and overland logistics are blocked, and a trapped army might have been more temptation than A-jad and Khameini could resist. "Invade Iraq?" Keeps Teheran looking over both shoulders. Takes Sadam, Uday, and Qusay off the table. Makes a statement. Balances the demographic disparity between Arab Islamic and central Asian Islamic extremist POWs. Opens a second killing ground (my apologies to the pacifists, but "Whack a mole" has already been discussed in another thread by at least one among us). The PR campaign in the UN gave nothing away to Iran IF this was the case. WMDs? Sadam's complicity in bankrolling 9-11? Harboring terrorists? More "red herring?" We won't know for fifty to a hundred years. DoD does pay attention to such details. It's a high stakes game, and you don't play your cards from face up on the table in front of news cameras. Come to think of it, the Pakistanis did close Khyber a couple times over some sort of squabbles, plus a couple fuel and supply convoys being burned. Might not be so far-fetched a concern.
Couple of us definitely feel that Iraq and/or inadequate equipment are proximal causes for "losses."
edward said:IMHO, We lost Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. Then the Defense Department assumed that armored Humvees wouldn't be needed once the invasion of Iraq was over.
edward said:Essentially we lost Afghanistan as soon as we invaded Iraq. Read this blather by Rumsfeld concerning the failure to provide the troops with up armored Humvees and you will now why we lost Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-july-dec04-armor_12-9/
lisab said:Ugh. Rumsfeld.... How people can think we're worse off now than when he and his buddies were in office, I'll never understand.
lisab said:It's why we started a war that is not winnable.
lisab said:Ok then, in your narrative: "we" joined a war -- an old, old war, with a story line we were not aware of. And why? Why did we do that? Who thought that would be a great idea? Rummy and his ilk, that's who.
So much blood on their hands, IMO. I don't know how they sleep.
If not the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, are you referring to the post-1991 Gulf War (or, for anyone who buys into my "1500 Year War," the 1991 Battle of Kuwait) "Monday morning quarterbacks" vs. the "power-vacuum consequences" debate?edward said:The invasion of Iraq was being discussed before 911.(snip).
And, there are a couple of us who aren't buying the "loss" premise.
mheslep said:Those who contend Iraq was lost need to contend first with the comments of the current administration.(snip)
And the post mortem cliche ---
"They weren't prepared." has been said of almost every army in almost every war in history.Astronuc said:A 3-Star General Explains 'Why We Lost' In Iraq, Afghanistan
(snip) Trained for regular conflicts, the military seems ill-prepared for counterinsurgency. Seems like the same situation in WWI when the old 19th century way of combat did not work when confronted with mechanized/industrialized combat with machine guns, mortars, armored cavalry (tanks), air craft, landmines, poisonous gas, . . .
Bolger? The Wall Street Journal's review http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-review-why-we-lost-by-daniel-p-bolger-1415922914