5 ms·

Speaking as a career American military officer, one of the biggest (of many, many) problems that led to our failure in Afghanistan was getting the Afghan Nation

Speaking as a career American military officer, one of the biggest (of many, many) problems that led to our failure in Afghanistan was getting the Afghan National Army to some degree of self-sufficiency as we tried to build them up in our own image, and the biggest gap was in their ability to manage all of the back-office administrative stuff (logistics, human resources, etc.). The US Department of Defense is a massive bureaucracy for a lot of reasons, but some of them are good reasons. It really does take a lot of staff work at desks and in meetings to effectively manage the whole lifecycle of acquisition, fielding, recruiting, training, deployment, sustainment, maintenance, etc. at-scale. I was a helicopter pilot, and we all quickly learn that we spend about 5% of our time flying and 95% of our time doing everything else to keep the aircraft and crews capable of flying. We're very curious to see exactly how long the Taliban will be able to keep all those helicopters that we left in Afghanistan in working condition.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> I was a helicopter pilot, and we all quickly learn that we spend about 5% of our time flying and 95% of our time doing everything else to keep the aircraft and crews capable of flying. We're very curious to see exactly how long the Taliban will be able to keep all those helicopters that we left in Afghanistan in working condition. I don't think anyone expected them to keep Black Hawks in the air very long, not without spare parts...unless the Chinese can come up with something? Frankly, I'm amazed Iran has kept their F-14s in the air for so long, but they at least have a culture of desk work and logistics.
- warner25 4y ago
  I was already surprised to see them flying some Black Hawks in their parade marking the anniversary of their return to power a few months ago. Just starting the engines and getting off the ground is non-trivial. But they still have under their thumb a lot of pilots that we trained, who weren't able to escape. I have no inside knowledge of this, but there was some news earlier this month about them actually training new pilots. We've produced and exported a lot more Hawks (of various flavors) than F-14s, so I imagine that the availability of parts will be much better for them, but they clearly have no ability to produce parts domestically like Iran might have done. I expect that these helicopters will probably be used mainly for showmanship, and later static displays, as a symbol of strength, like Afghan warlords kept old and no-longer-functional Stinger missile launchers on-hand for many years as status symbols.
kuhewa 4y ago
This comment made me wonder: if we had to do this again.. I imagine there been lessons learnt, but is there an alternative model to build up a military?
- warner25 4y ago
  I'm not a strategist, but... I think it's important to remember that the idea wasn't to build up just a military or security force. That was a necessary part of it, so that they could begin providing security for themselves instead of relying on US troops to do it for them indefinitely. But that was supposed to go hand-in-glove with also building up functional government and economic institutions, literacy, faith in democracy and rule-of-law, etc. Two problems: 1. The US military was basically left to do all of the above by itself, with only token commitment from other US government agencies and NATO partners. As a military we are pretty good at fighting, less good at building up another country's military force, and pretty bad at doing all the non-military stuff. We tried, and there was a whole cultural revolution within the Army between about 2005-2012 to get better at this, but we have to balance that with still being able to fight head-to-head against a peer military in large-scale combat. 2. The whole idea of "nation building" may just not be realistic, at least not on any timeline that we'd find acceptable. So the "alternative model" is probably putting up alternative goalposts. I think that's where we've effectively landed. Afghanistan isn't what we hoped it would be, but we can still play whack-a-mole with any Al-Qaeda (and now Islamic State) pockets that gather there to stage attacks on our interests, which is maybe what we should have limited ourselves to doing from the start.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    Thanks! Yeah I suppose the possible scope for substantial military building absent a larger nation building project is limited
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  There was never any possibility of any success. These people have been small warring tribes forever, and muddled with by outside countries for longer than the US has existed. An entire generation of fighters grew up in an environment where the US had drones buzzing overhead all the time and US bullets kept ending up in their family members heads. Their parents grew up fighting the soviets. They never wanted to be a western democracy, they just want to be left alone, and they should have been given that dignity. If the people of a country don't want to stop being an oppressive religious regime, why would they have rallied behind a godless democracy?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
leros 4y ago
I have a friend who is an Army officer. It's interesting to talk to him about his work. He's weapons trained and all that, but his job basically boils down to being a mid-level manager managing a team of logistics people. Basically your average boring office job.
- warner25 4y ago
  Yeah, you're not wrong. Being an Army officer is also not a singular "job" since we effectively change jobs within the Army every 1-3 years, and the jobs vary widely. We might go from a job that requires hands-on skill flying a tactical aircraft and employing weapon systems in combat, to a job that is basically doing logistics or HR middle-management[1] like you said, to a job in Washington (on Capitol Hill or at the White House) advising senior civilians and writing speeches on defense strategy and policy within our first 10-15 years. [1] To get a real sense of just how mundane this can be, skim the table of contents for this Army Regulation which is like the bible or touchstone for every officer in command of a unit: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32931-AR_600-20-004-WEB-6.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32931-AR_600...
  - leros 4y ago
    That's true. He went from managing a 400 person group to now being an individual contributor in an intelligence role. I think he did some sort of training in between those jobs.
_8j50 4y ago
What failure in Afghanistan? The war was over in the 2000's with the US having full control of Afghanistan right? As far as nation building, it was a silly idea to begin with to help your defeated enemy rebuild but the failure there is the Afghan people's failure. Their soldiers would resist training and discipline and their politicians were consumed with bickering and infighting. They were not ready or willing to accept democratic rule or a civilian controlled military. They failed, the US merely stopped dumping money there for free. As far as the Taliban go, no one is concerned that in their current state they will harbor al-qaeda or pose a risk to the west. Their leadership and al-qaeda in Afghanistan was eliminated. What you have now is people who believe in the Taliban's ideals beliefs who continued the old organization and it's rule over the country. Vietnam I get calling a failure but Afghanistan is a stretch. The US was never interested in colonizing them and eradicating the Taliban entirely would require colonization and transforming their culture and ways so they can accept western ways and ideals which even if the US was willing to do, the american people don't have the stomach for the cruelty involved in such an affair. Honestly, if Americans were cruel and craved violence does anyone doubt the taliban along with millions of civillians could be wiped out cleanly and permanently? Historically, that is what happens in war and even in current times you can see worse cruelty in war. Is it really defeat when you pull out because you don't want to hurt your enemy even more than you already have?
- warner25 4y ago
  So if we go back to the original objectives, I think they were (1) to destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and (2) replace the Taliban with a government that would never again provide a safe space for Al-Qaeda or any entity like that. On (1), sure, I think we can declare success. On (2), yes, we had full control within months (weeks?) of invading the country, but that was only true, at best, as long as we physically occupied every part of the country, and that wasn't the plan. The Taliban is back in power and arguably stronger than they were before we dislodged them and spent so many resources trying to sustainably replace them with someone else. Now, I agree that maybe we can make an argument that it's not the same Taliban anymore, and maybe this one wouldn't accept the presence of something like Al-Qaeda again. Indeed, we've actually worked with them to fight pockets of the Islamic State already. But this remains to be seen, and is still a pretty disappointing outcome if not a "failure."

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> I was a helicopter pilot, and we all quickly learn that we spend about 5% of our time flying and 95% of our time doing everything else to keep the aircraft and crews capable of flying. We're very curious to see exactly how long the Taliban will be able to keep all those helicopters that we left in Afghanistan in working condition. I don't think anyone expected them to keep Black Hawks in the air very long, not without spare parts...unless the Chinese can come up with something? Frankly, I'm amazed Iran has kept their F-14s in the air for so long, but they at least have a culture of desk work and logistics.

warner25 4y ago
I was already surprised to see them flying some Black Hawks in their parade marking the anniversary of their return to power a few months ago. Just starting the engines and getting off the ground is non-trivial. But they still have under their thumb a lot of pilots that we trained, who weren't able to escape. I have no inside knowledge of this, but there was some news earlier this month about them actually training new pilots. We've produced and exported a lot more Hawks (of various flavors) than F-14s, so I imagine that the availability of parts will be much better for them, but they clearly have no ability to produce parts domestically like Iran might have done. I expect that these helicopters will probably be used mainly for showmanship, and later static displays, as a symbol of strength, like Afghan warlords kept old and no-longer-functional Stinger missile launchers on-hand for many years as status symbols.

kuhewa 4y ago

This comment made me wonder: if we had to do this again.. I imagine there been lessons learnt, but is there an alternative model to build up a military?

warner25 4y ago
I'm not a strategist, but... I think it's important to remember that the idea wasn't to build up just a military or security force. That was a necessary part of it, so that they could begin providing security for themselves instead of relying on US troops to do it for them indefinitely. But that was supposed to go hand-in-glove with also building up functional government and economic institutions, literacy, faith in democracy and rule-of-law, etc. Two problems: 1. The US military was basically left to do all of the above by itself, with only token commitment from other US government agencies and NATO partners. As a military we are pretty good at fighting, less good at building up another country's military force, and pretty bad at doing all the non-military stuff. We tried, and there was a whole cultural revolution within the Army between about 2005-2012 to get better at this, but we have to balance that with still being able to fight head-to-head against a peer military in large-scale combat. 2. The whole idea of "nation building" may just not be realistic, at least not on any timeline that we'd find acceptable. So the "alternative model" is probably putting up alternative goalposts. I think that's where we've effectively landed. Afghanistan isn't what we hoped it would be, but we can still play whack-a-mole with any Al-Qaeda (and now Islamic State) pockets that gather there to stage attacks on our interests, which is maybe what we should have limited ourselves to doing from the start.
- kuhewa 4y ago
  Thanks! Yeah I suppose the possible scope for substantial military building absent a larger nation building project is limited
mrguyorama 4y ago
There was never any possibility of any success. These people have been small warring tribes forever, and muddled with by outside countries for longer than the US has existed. An entire generation of fighters grew up in an environment where the US had drones buzzing overhead all the time and US bullets kept ending up in their family members heads. Their parents grew up fighting the soviets. They never wanted to be a western democracy, they just want to be left alone, and they should have been given that dignity. If the people of a country don't want to stop being an oppressive religious regime, why would they have rallied behind a godless democracy?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

leros 4y ago

I have a friend who is an Army officer. It's interesting to talk to him about his work. He's weapons trained and all that, but his job basically boils down to being a mid-level manager managing a team of logistics people. Basically your average boring office job.

warner25 4y ago
Yeah, you're not wrong. Being an Army officer is also not a singular "job" since we effectively change jobs within the Army every 1-3 years, and the jobs vary widely. We might go from a job that requires hands-on skill flying a tactical aircraft and employing weapon systems in combat, to a job that is basically doing logistics or HR middle-management[1] like you said, to a job in Washington (on Capitol Hill or at the White House) advising senior civilians and writing speeches on defense strategy and policy within our first 10-15 years. [1] To get a real sense of just how mundane this can be, skim the table of contents for this Army Regulation which is like the bible or touchstone for every officer in command of a unit: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32931-AR_600-20-004-WEB-6.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32931-AR_600...
- leros 4y ago
  That's true. He went from managing a 400 person group to now being an individual contributor in an intelligence role. I think he did some sort of training in between those jobs.

_8j50 4y ago

What failure in Afghanistan? The war was over in the 2000's with the US having full control of Afghanistan right? As far as nation building, it was a silly idea to begin with to help your defeated enemy rebuild but the failure there is the Afghan people's failure. Their soldiers would resist training and discipline and their politicians were consumed with bickering and infighting. They were not ready or willing to accept democratic rule or a civilian controlled military. They failed, the US merely stopped dumping money there for free. As far as the Taliban go, no one is concerned that in their current state they will harbor al-qaeda or pose a risk to the west. Their leadership and al-qaeda in Afghanistan was eliminated. What you have now is people who believe in the Taliban's ideals beliefs who continued the old organization and it's rule over the country. Vietnam I get calling a failure but Afghanistan is a stretch. The US was never interested in colonizing them and eradicating the Taliban entirely would require colonization and transforming their culture and ways so they can accept western ways and ideals which even if the US was willing to do, the american people don't have the stomach for the cruelty involved in such an affair. Honestly, if Americans were cruel and craved violence does anyone doubt the taliban along with millions of civillians could be wiped out cleanly and permanently? Historically, that is what happens in war and even in current times you can see worse cruelty in war. Is it really defeat when you pull out because you don't want to hurt your enemy even more than you already have?

warner25 4y ago
So if we go back to the original objectives, I think they were (1) to destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and (2) replace the Taliban with a government that would never again provide a safe space for Al-Qaeda or any entity like that. On (1), sure, I think we can declare success. On (2), yes, we had full control within months (weeks?) of invading the country, but that was only true, at best, as long as we physically occupied every part of the country, and that wasn't the plan. The Taliban is back in power and arguably stronger than they were before we dislodged them and spent so many resources trying to sustainably replace them with someone else. Now, I agree that maybe we can make an argument that it's not the same Taliban anymore, and maybe this one wouldn't accept the presence of something like Al-Qaeda again. Indeed, we've actually worked with them to fight pockets of the Islamic State already. But this remains to be seen, and is still a pretty disappointing outcome if not a "failure."