5 ms·

For the Bush administration, they ignored initial recommendations to work with the locals after the initial invasion, creating a lot of unemployed, angry, young

by dx87 7y ago

For the Bush administration, they ignored initial recommendations to work with the locals after the initial invasion, creating a lot of unemployed, angry, young people with military training. For the Obama administration, they ignored recommendations to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban. Forces were kept low so they could keep saying "we're bringing the troops home" during speaches. It was like quitting an antibiotic treatment too soon; we eliminated the low hanging fruit, but the Taliban that remained had even better training, and could point to our prescence as a recruiting tool.

heymijo 7y ago
> to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban This is easier said than done, if it is possible at all. Having recently taken a dive into the U.S.' involvement in Vietnam, this argument rings eerily similar the one that got us into and led to our escalation in Vietnam.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  I think these things are more possible than people believe. If it were truly an existential threat the US would remove the Taliban very quickly (that doesn't imply a safe orderly society would result). But Afghanistan, like Vietnam is an optional and non-essential conflict at this point with unclear definitions of victory. Maybe "victory" is packing up and going home at this point.
  - Spearchucker 7y ago
    The Russians also thought victory in Afghanistan was possible. Their humiliation was absolute. The US' mistake was not capitalizing on Russia's failure, choosing instead to make exactly the same mistake.
    - anarazel 7y ago
      I don't think that was inevitable. If the Bush admin hadn't fucked up on such a grandiose scale after the invasion the result could have looked quite different (still surely far from pretty).
  - dennisgorelik 7y ago
    > Maybe "victory" is packing up and going home at this point. In case of Afghanistan, it is not just "maybe". Packing up and go home - is a clear win for the US in Afghanistan.
    - warlog 7y ago
      Clear win. Like Vietnam.
  - mturmon 7y ago
    > ... the US would remove the Taliban very quickly... No, no, no. The Taliban were broadly distributed throughout Southern Afghanistan, and they had a cross border sanctuary in Pakistan. For its own reasons (Kashmir and the regional rivalry with India), Pakistan didn’t want to alienate the Taliban, and their military and ISI thus had extensive relations with the Taliban. The US did not have enough leverage to get Pakistan to shut down the Taliban on its side of the border, and likewise did not want the destabilization of a nuclear state with borders on China and India that would accompany violations of Pakistani sovereignty inherent in large scale bombing.
    - smt1 7y ago
      > No, no, no. The Taliban were broadly distributed throughout Southern Afghanistan, and they had a cross border sanctuary in Pakistan. I guess it depends on your definition of "remove". I don't doubt that a Taliban government could be very quickly overthrown by the US military. Probably within weeks. Now, the Taliban as an irregular militia is a completely different manner. I remember watching a Vice documentary on Afghanistan called "This is what winning looks like". The line that struck me was a US Marine saying something like "the average Taliban fighter fights within 15 yards of their home". If that's anything close to true, no wonder the Taliban have been so hard to defeat.
  - anarazel 7y ago
    There were over 100k US troops deployed to Afghanistan at the peak (part of 2010-2011). Between 2009 and 2013 it was over 50k. The Soviet Union deployed over 115k for several years. The amount of fortune spent was a serious accelerator for the decline of the USSR. Afghanistan is a large, dispersed, and landlocked country. With huge amounts of weapons from many sides. Decades of war. Little trust between population groups.
  - onetimemanytime 7y ago
    >>If it were truly an existential threat the US would remove the Taliban very quickly (that doesn't imply a safe orderly society would result). With what, nukes? Or by sending 5 million soldiers using $400/gallon gasoline https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-cost-of-gas-at-afghan-bases-400-gal/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-cost-of-gas-at-afghan-base... ? Like them or not, the Taliban are in their country and quite a few Afghani think like them. Let them be, with a major caveat--do not let anyone there attack us or our partners. I think they are rational enough to do that since USA did cause them a lot of problems. They are so many problems in the world, USA cannot fix them. Not even make a dent.
    - taejo 7y ago
      Just FYI, Afghanis are units of currency; citizens of Afghanistan are Afghans.
      - onetimemanytime 7y ago
        Thanks, didn't mean it as an insult (if it is https://www.thefreedictionary.com/afghanis https://www.thefreedictionary.com/afghanis )
throwaway22920 7y ago
Troop levels in Afghanistan kept increasing for the first decade of the war[1]. If a decade is considered "too soon," what should be considered "too long"? [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-t...
anarazel 7y ago
Re bush: They also refused to negotiate / reintegrate the Taliban, in particular early on when they were weak (yes, there's a lot of parallels to Iraq). Once the Iraq war started there was very little attention paid to Afghanistan, for several years. Including very little effort building up security architecture. Re Obama: there clearly was a lot wrong with the Afghanistan policy. But I'm not sure I really buy the "low troop level" argument. Even at peak deployment levels (pretty darn high) under Obama the military operations weren't going particularly well. And that wasn't sustainable.
vkou 7y ago
> For the Obama administration, they ignored recommendations to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban. 1. Of course the military would ask for this, and complain after the fact. 2. It's easy for generals to make promises, but I have zero confidence that they would have actually delivered any results.
jorblumesea 7y ago
> increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban With Pakistan providing huge financial and logistical support to the Taliban, it would never be eliminated. Geopolitical experts understand that so long as Pakistan has the India problem, Afghanistan will have the Taliban as a buffer state.
- jdeibele 7y ago
  China is supposed to back North Korea because it acts as a buffer between China and South Korea. Pakistan is between Afghanistan and India. https://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Afghan_etc.htm https://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Afghan_etc.h... I'm confused as to how it would be a buffer. Can you explain?
  - anarazel 7y ago
    One of the recurring complains / concerns of Pakistan is/was that Afghanistan post invasion was cooperating too much with India. From what I understand (which is certainly very limited) that was more fear than reality. But from the POV of Pakistan's,hugely anti-India, military, it's not that hard to understand how being encircled by India and a "puppet state" is seen as threatening. I think there's pretty good evidence that the ISI has (does?) financed/organized training camps for anti India groups (like Lashkar-e-Taiba) in Afghanistan.
  - jorblumesea 7y ago
    A few reasons. 1) Fear of Indian sponsored proxies and being squeezed from both sides. An India friendly Afghanistan presents an existential danger to Pakistan's interests. Pakistan does not want to be encircled by hostile powers. 2) An unstable Afghanistan means possible anti-Pakistan elements taking root. Better to sponsor known "pakistan friendly" elements like the Taliban instead of unknowns. 3) Defense in depth. Pakistani military and political doctrine would use Afghanistan as a redoubt. Most of Pakistan is extremely flat until you get to the Hindu Kush/Pamir mountains. The idea would be, let India steamroll the flat lands, retreat into the mountains and cross the durand line, coordinate the response from Afghanistan.
jeremysalwen 7y ago
I mean, 7-15 years after the initial invasion? It's hard for me to believe that after 20 years the recommendation wouldn't still be the same.
mcguire 7y ago
Marine Lt. Col. Pete Ellis, "Bush Brigades", 1921. https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-america-fighting-in-the-philippines/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-ame... https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-population-centric-counterinsurgency/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-pop...
empath75 7y ago
> they ignored recommendations to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban I am extremely skeptical that any feasible amount of troops on the ground could have achieved such a goal.
tmpz22 7y ago
I've picked up a lot of anecdotes from various serviceman about the war in Afghanistan and I wonder how much of it is true. > work with the locals after the initial invasion 1) Isn't it an ongoing meme in the US military that ANA troops are useless and that the government is corrupt to an unimaginable level? 2) Didn't we also originally burn their opium fields, only to allow it to become once again one of there chief economic exports since it was so vital to the local economies? 3) Is it true we had a formal policy of allowing elder tribal leaders to systematically rape young boys in order to be more accommodating to their local customs? Including trading viagra for tips on insurgent activity? I realize some of these questions are pretty sensitive and may be uncomfortable to answer. It just seems like it needs to be brought up whenever we talk about the Afghan war (while it's usually swept under the rug...).
- nradov 7y ago
  You shouldn't be downvoted. This exactly matches what most experienced troops report.
adultSwim 7y ago
they ignored initial recommendations to work with the locals after the initial invasion, creating a lot of unemployed, angry, young people with military training We then saw this play out to devastating effect with the de-Baathication agenda in Iraq.

by dx87 7y ago

heymijo 7y ago

> to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban This is easier said than done, if it is possible at all. Having recently taken a dive into the U.S.' involvement in Vietnam, this argument rings eerily similar the one that got us into and led to our escalation in Vietnam.

mythrwy 7y ago
I think these things are more possible than people believe. If it were truly an existential threat the US would remove the Taliban very quickly (that doesn't imply a safe orderly society would result). But Afghanistan, like Vietnam is an optional and non-essential conflict at this point with unclear definitions of victory. Maybe "victory" is packing up and going home at this point.
- Spearchucker 7y ago
  The Russians also thought victory in Afghanistan was possible. Their humiliation was absolute. The US' mistake was not capitalizing on Russia's failure, choosing instead to make exactly the same mistake.
  - anarazel 7y ago
    I don't think that was inevitable. If the Bush admin hadn't fucked up on such a grandiose scale after the invasion the result could have looked quite different (still surely far from pretty).
- dennisgorelik 7y ago
  > Maybe "victory" is packing up and going home at this point. In case of Afghanistan, it is not just "maybe". Packing up and go home - is a clear win for the US in Afghanistan.
  - warlog 7y ago
    Clear win. Like Vietnam.
- mturmon 7y ago
  > ... the US would remove the Taliban very quickly... No, no, no. The Taliban were broadly distributed throughout Southern Afghanistan, and they had a cross border sanctuary in Pakistan. For its own reasons (Kashmir and the regional rivalry with India), Pakistan didn’t want to alienate the Taliban, and their military and ISI thus had extensive relations with the Taliban. The US did not have enough leverage to get Pakistan to shut down the Taliban on its side of the border, and likewise did not want the destabilization of a nuclear state with borders on China and India that would accompany violations of Pakistani sovereignty inherent in large scale bombing.
  - smt1 7y ago
    > No, no, no. The Taliban were broadly distributed throughout Southern Afghanistan, and they had a cross border sanctuary in Pakistan. I guess it depends on your definition of "remove". I don't doubt that a Taliban government could be very quickly overthrown by the US military. Probably within weeks. Now, the Taliban as an irregular militia is a completely different manner. I remember watching a Vice documentary on Afghanistan called "This is what winning looks like". The line that struck me was a US Marine saying something like "the average Taliban fighter fights within 15 yards of their home". If that's anything close to true, no wonder the Taliban have been so hard to defeat.
- anarazel 7y ago
  There were over 100k US troops deployed to Afghanistan at the peak (part of 2010-2011). Between 2009 and 2013 it was over 50k. The Soviet Union deployed over 115k for several years. The amount of fortune spent was a serious accelerator for the decline of the USSR. Afghanistan is a large, dispersed, and landlocked country. With huge amounts of weapons from many sides. Decades of war. Little trust between population groups.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  >>If it were truly an existential threat the US would remove the Taliban very quickly (that doesn't imply a safe orderly society would result). With what, nukes? Or by sending 5 million soldiers using $400/gallon gasoline https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-cost-of-gas-at-afghan-bases-400-gal/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-cost-of-gas-at-afghan-base... ? Like them or not, the Taliban are in their country and quite a few Afghani think like them. Let them be, with a major caveat--do not let anyone there attack us or our partners. I think they are rational enough to do that since USA did cause them a lot of problems. They are so many problems in the world, USA cannot fix them. Not even make a dent.
  - taejo 7y ago
    Just FYI, Afghanis are units of currency; citizens of Afghanistan are Afghans.
    - onetimemanytime 7y ago
      Thanks, didn't mean it as an insult (if it is https://www.thefreedictionary.com/afghanis https://www.thefreedictionary.com/afghanis )

throwaway22920 7y ago

Troop levels in Afghanistan kept increasing for the first decade of the war[1]. If a decade is considered "too soon," what should be considered "too long"? [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-t...

anarazel 7y ago

Re bush: They also refused to negotiate / reintegrate the Taliban, in particular early on when they were weak (yes, there's a lot of parallels to Iraq). Once the Iraq war started there was very little attention paid to Afghanistan, for several years. Including very little effort building up security architecture. Re Obama: there clearly was a lot wrong with the Afghanistan policy. But I'm not sure I really buy the "low troop level" argument. Even at peak deployment levels (pretty darn high) under Obama the military operations weren't going particularly well. And that wasn't sustainable.

vkou 7y ago

> For the Obama administration, they ignored recommendations to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban. 1. Of course the military would ask for this, and complain after the fact. 2. It's easy for generals to make promises, but I have zero confidence that they would have actually delivered any results.

jorblumesea 7y ago

> increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban With Pakistan providing huge financial and logistical support to the Taliban, it would never be eliminated. Geopolitical experts understand that so long as Pakistan has the India problem, Afghanistan will have the Taliban as a buffer state.

jdeibele 7y ago
China is supposed to back North Korea because it acts as a buffer between China and South Korea. Pakistan is between Afghanistan and India. https://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Afghan_etc.htm https://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Afghan_etc.h... I'm confused as to how it would be a buffer. Can you explain?
- anarazel 7y ago
  One of the recurring complains / concerns of Pakistan is/was that Afghanistan post invasion was cooperating too much with India. From what I understand (which is certainly very limited) that was more fear than reality. But from the POV of Pakistan's,hugely anti-India, military, it's not that hard to understand how being encircled by India and a "puppet state" is seen as threatening. I think there's pretty good evidence that the ISI has (does?) financed/organized training camps for anti India groups (like Lashkar-e-Taiba) in Afghanistan.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  A few reasons. 1) Fear of Indian sponsored proxies and being squeezed from both sides. An India friendly Afghanistan presents an existential danger to Pakistan's interests. Pakistan does not want to be encircled by hostile powers. 2) An unstable Afghanistan means possible anti-Pakistan elements taking root. Better to sponsor known "pakistan friendly" elements like the Taliban instead of unknowns. 3) Defense in depth. Pakistani military and political doctrine would use Afghanistan as a redoubt. Most of Pakistan is extremely flat until you get to the Hindu Kush/Pamir mountains. The idea would be, let India steamroll the flat lands, retreat into the mountains and cross the durand line, coordinate the response from Afghanistan.

jeremysalwen 7y ago

I mean, 7-15 years after the initial invasion? It's hard for me to believe that after 20 years the recommendation wouldn't still be the same.

mcguire 7y ago

Marine Lt. Col. Pete Ellis, "Bush Brigades", 1921. https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-america-fighting-in-the-philippines/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-ame... https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-population-centric-counterinsurgency/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-pop...

empath75 7y ago

> they ignored recommendations to increase the military presence to a level that they could effectively remove the Taliban I am extremely skeptical that any feasible amount of troops on the ground could have achieved such a goal.

tmpz22 7y ago

I've picked up a lot of anecdotes from various serviceman about the war in Afghanistan and I wonder how much of it is true. > work with the locals after the initial invasion 1) Isn't it an ongoing meme in the US military that ANA troops are useless and that the government is corrupt to an unimaginable level? 2) Didn't we also originally burn their opium fields, only to allow it to become once again one of there chief economic exports since it was so vital to the local economies? 3) Is it true we had a formal policy of allowing elder tribal leaders to systematically rape young boys in order to be more accommodating to their local customs? Including trading viagra for tips on insurgent activity? I realize some of these questions are pretty sensitive and may be uncomfortable to answer. It just seems like it needs to be brought up whenever we talk about the Afghan war (while it's usually swept under the rug...).

nradov 7y ago
You shouldn't be downvoted. This exactly matches what most experienced troops report.

adultSwim 7y ago

they ignored initial recommendations to work with the locals after the initial invasion, creating a lot of unemployed, angry, young people with military training We then saw this play out to devastating effect with the de-Baathication agenda in Iraq.