In The Afghan War Aim For The Middle Ground

[jeypore]

Pakistan's reasons for objecting to troop increases are public - Haas would do well to first analyze the PA's publicly voiced rationale behind opposing troop increases instead of clutching at conspiracy theories and regurgitating the old 'strategic depth' bogeyman.

Is he really wrong Mr. Am, or there is a fine line of conspiracy theories. To me it does sound more rational, doesn't it. We all know the strategic application of Afganistan, and what Pakistan has to do to make it's in own's favor.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is he really wrong Mr. Am, or there is a fine line of conspiracy theories. To me it does sound more rational, doesn't it. We all know the strategic application of Afganistan, and what Pakistan has to do to make it's in own's favor.

When there is a publicly voiced reason, the logical thing to do would be to analyze that first, before leaping to conclusions based on 'conspiracy theories'.

Shuja Nawaz (Crossed Swords) who has been plenty critical of the Army in his book, analyzes the strategic depth as a comment of COAS Beg that was blown out of proportion, due in part to a poor choice of words and venue by the general himself.

Nawaz goes into quite a bit of detail on that count, also pointing out that Beg's successors, and Beg himself, had pretty much nothing to much to say on the issue of 'strategic depth' from that point on.

The phrase, catchy that it is, has however stuck around, but it remains an obsolete concept, and Haas offers no justification for his 'analysis'.

 

[jeypore]

in the end - peace in afghanistan goes thru pakistan - whether the US (or india) likes it or not.

Isn't that becoming a challenge!!! That is why 300 bill is spent and a cry of 4 billion is raised. What Pakistan goal is of the old is what the US does not want, and it will fight no matter how many presidency. Infact a resent poll of 54% or greater (if I am not mistaken) was done to fight for Al queda in the US.

The solution is solveable by using countries involved in NATO, but is up to Obama afterall.

 

[S-2]

K,

"my friend S-2 has mentioned somewhere else that the US has no choice but to become a "occupying force" and side-step the karzai govt..."

I don't know where I said such but, if so, it won't happen. We're trapped by our rhetoric of "building democratic institutions". That rhetoric is embedded not only with Afghans but our other allies as well.

"...in the long-term, the COIN will need to provide security, infrastructure, justice to ALL the people of afghanistan and not just the urban areas."

This is correct though it has less to do with being an "occupying force" which side-steps the Karzai regime than sheer numbers. I don't know the true quality of the Iraqi army but it's reasonable to suggest that it's likely better than the Afghan Army. Secondly, the demographics of Iraq permitted us to marry a U.S. rifle platoon with that of an Iraqi platoon in a COP somewhere within Iraq's urban sprawl and achieve far greater "bang per buck" than would be possible in Afghanistan.

Regardless of accuracy to population figures, there's little denying the uniformly rural character of Afghanistan. All one needs for such is to add together the total population of Afghanistan's fifty largest cities to see how many people are left out.

A lot.

If so, that suggests we may not cover enough of the nation to matter. I've suggested that the inter-connecting LOCs may be rendered vulnerable by such. It IS only a suggestion and remains incumbent upon my hypothesis about pop. demographics. That, though, must be contrasted by McChrystal's actual plan. Of that, I've no knowledge and may be reaching in my assessment...

...or not. Just don't know. I LIKE the idea but am dissatisfied with our ability to meaningfully implement such until I know much more-to include whether 40,000 more troops are deployed, in what configuration, and to where exactly.

 

[S-2]

"If that marine stumbling and blustering around in that village is representative of the 'COIN skills' of US troops, a return to the books is required big time..."

His conduct has been noted elsewhere by everybody who's watched the show. Consider your comment and weigh it against those you've seen made by many other U.S. soldiers and officers.

I'm not particularly proud of that young man's behavior but I don't believe it's particularly representative either. There was other behavior exhibited by other men and officers in that video that we saw which you've failed to highlight. Finally, if his behavior was the worst which our troops exhibit, I can live with it. As usual, there may be more than meets the eye, to include the effect of having just lost a comrade in battle, fatigue, and intense heat.

So is your comment a fair assessment?

That said, your press restrictions have afforded us the opportunity to see FAAAR less of your army in battle but I could draw on some isolated memories as well, such as Pakistani troops and tanks hastily withdrawing from contact in Bajaur, according to al-Jazerra. Remember? Would that behavior be accurate for all?

I think not.

Please don't grandstand for cheap points.

Thanks.

 

[parihaka]

K,

"my friend S-2 has mentioned somewhere else that the US has no choice but to become a "occupying force" and side-step the karzai govt..."

I don't know where I said such but, if so, it won't happen. We're trapped by our rhetoric of "building democratic institutions". That rhetoric is embedded not only with Afghans but our other allies as well.

In fact I seem to remember you arguing against it when I proposed it eleswhere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"If that marine stumbling and blustering around in that village is representative of the 'COIN skills' of US troops, a return to the books is required big time..."

His conduct has been noted elsewhere by everybody who's watched the show. Consider your comment and weigh it against those you've seen made by many other U.S. soldiers and officers.

I'm not particularly proud of that young man's behavior but I don't believe it's particularly representative either.

Note I said 'if' - no need to fly into a huff.

There was other behavior exhibited by other men and officers in that video that we saw which you've failed to highlight.

I was responding to FM's comment, the behaviour of that particualr marine fit within the context, I assume those who watch the video will see US troop attitudes and expertise in the totality of how it is presented.

Finally, if his behavior was the worst which our troops exhibit, I can live with it. As usual, there may be more than meets the eye, to include the effect of having just lost a comrade in battle, fatigue, and intense heat.

So is your comment a fair assessment?

'IF' then 'yes' - you do understand conditional statements don't you?

That said, your press restrictions have afforded us the opportunity to see FAAAR less of your army in battle but I could draw on some isolated memories as well, such as Pakistani troops and tanks hastily withdrawing from contact in Bajaur, according to al-Jazerra. Remember? Would that behavior be accurate for all?

What's wrong with tanks withdrawing from a potential ambush? 'If' the conditions necessitated withdrawal, then the behavior in similar circumstances should be replicated I would assume.

Cheers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is he really wrong Mr. Am, or there is a fine line of conspiracy theories. To me it does sound more rational, doesn't it. We all know the strategic application of Afganistan, and what Pakistan has to do to make it's in own's favor.

PS: Musharraf is as ardently nationalistic as ever, and he has now several times called for more NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Whatever else, the current military leadership's pessimism over US troop increases in Afghanistan is not linked to 'strategic depth'. How else would you explain Musharraf's views - a man who ran Pakistan, its Military and intelligence services for almost a decade?