4 ms·

When the US invaded Afghanistan, I (and some of my friends) smartassedly noted that where the British and Russians failed, so would the US. Ultimately the US h

When the US invaded Afghanistan, I (and some of my friends) smartassedly noted that where the British and Russians failed, so would the US. Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really the world isn't better for my smartass comments. The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box. I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve it.

ryanobjc 13y ago
To follow up, I think the project could be defined as 'the civilizing of Afghanistan". Reduce the chance of it nurturing terrorism, helping calm relations between neighbors, reducing the rates of violence. Of course, in the UN framework this is not really up to someone else. Sovereignty and all of that.
- abcd_f 13y ago
  > I think the project could be defined as 'the civilizing of Afghanistan". Reduce the chance of it nurturing terrorism, helping calm relations between neighbors, reducing the rates of violence. Awesome! Sounds like a full-fleshed plan to me.
- rdl 13y ago
  I'd be pretty comfortable with a Chinese in Africa style program to build infrastructure and business while working with existing warlords and dictators on the ground. You might want some national level control (Taliban) to keep the civil war under control, but it would be a loose federation. The us really would never want to be seen working with even people like Dostrum, let alone the Taliban. I had a semi ironic Massoud sticker on my gun safe for a while , but even he was a pretty bad guy compared to non afghans.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
chaostheory 13y ago
> I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve it. imo They would not have fared batter. Vietnam is the prime example. The problem is that historically the US doesn't do well in long term, large scale unconventional warfare, especially if it isn't conducted on open terrain. Even if SOCOM runs the show now, overall the strategy is still highly conventional. Capturing Afghanistan is easy. Holding it every year is the true test. The humiliation from Vietnam has improved our forces as a whole. However, the problem remains. How do you fight an enemy with little to no infrastructure? How do you fight an enemy with no real fixed base of operations or even command? Maybe the US does know how to win the war now. Winning hearts and minds of the occupied is the key. Unfortunately, knowing how to win and executing a win are two very different things.
- ryanobjc 13y ago
  Interesting, I said 'solve the problem' but nothing really about capturing or fighting. Define the problem and solution broadly, and better ideas start coming out of the woodwork.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Ok, one of the biggest problems in that time was the continuing spread of Communism, namely China. It wasn't solved. The global landscape would be far different today if China was never a communist state. Cuba is another example of an unsolved problem.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  How is the Vietnam war (US involvement 1961-1975) a prime example of the US military of the 40's and 50's? Wouldn't Korea (1950-1953), the occupation of Japan (1945-1952) or the occupation of Germany (1945-1949) be better examples?
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Guess who developed military theory that was used in the 60's? It was the guys in the 40's and 50's who were fighting conventional wars against conventional foes. > Wouldn't Korea (1950-1953), the occupation of Japan (1945-1952) or the occupation of Germany (1945-1949) be better examples? No, because military strategy evolves from military theory. Military theory doesn't happen overnight. It develops over time from hard lessons which almost always involve a lot of body bags. WWI is a prime example of this. You have outdated strategies and theory mixed with new weapons that no one was accustomed to using on a large scale. The lessons learned were applied to WWII by WWI veterans. I also don't lump 70's Vietnam with 60's Vietnam. We were beginning to develop effective strategies to mitigate the guerrillas. However public support at home was pretty much gone.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
> Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really the world isn't better for my smartass comments. > The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box. This isn't right. The problem was not enough people making comments like you did. The real opportunity, which you were supporting, was to not invade in the first place. You did more to make the world a better place than a lot of people (wrt this issue).
- omegant 13y ago
  There are a couple of books on the CIA and special forces operations on Afghanistan prior to the invasion. You can see how with some dozens of guys on the ground, some air superiority and some millions to buy loyalties, they had Afghanistan under control in 2 months. The problem is that the Army and the Marines wanted their part of the cake (National revenge and of course the glory), that pressure from the pentagon is what forced the invasion and the current situation. Most Afghanis wanted a change from the Taliban, they were ready to support a different Afghan government, the problem is that they hated even more a foreigner hanging around with tanks at their homeland that they hated the dumb and abusing Taliban.

ryanobjc 13y ago

To follow up, I think the project could be defined as 'the civilizing of Afghanistan". Reduce the chance of it nurturing terrorism, helping calm relations between neighbors, reducing the rates of violence. Of course, in the UN framework this is not really up to someone else. Sovereignty and all of that.

abcd_f 13y ago
> I think the project could be defined as 'the civilizing of Afghanistan". Reduce the chance of it nurturing terrorism, helping calm relations between neighbors, reducing the rates of violence. Awesome! Sounds like a full-fleshed plan to me.
rdl 13y ago
I'd be pretty comfortable with a Chinese in Africa style program to build infrastructure and business while working with existing warlords and dictators on the ground. You might want some national level control (Taliban) to keep the civil war under control, but it would be a loose federation. The us really would never want to be seen working with even people like Dostrum, let alone the Taliban. I had a semi ironic Massoud sticker on my gun safe for a while , but even he was a pretty bad guy compared to non afghans.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

chaostheory 13y ago

> I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve it. imo They would not have fared batter. Vietnam is the prime example. The problem is that historically the US doesn't do well in long term, large scale unconventional warfare, especially if it isn't conducted on open terrain. Even if SOCOM runs the show now, overall the strategy is still highly conventional. Capturing Afghanistan is easy. Holding it every year is the true test. The humiliation from Vietnam has improved our forces as a whole. However, the problem remains. How do you fight an enemy with little to no infrastructure? How do you fight an enemy with no real fixed base of operations or even command? Maybe the US does know how to win the war now. Winning hearts and minds of the occupied is the key. Unfortunately, knowing how to win and executing a win are two very different things.

ryanobjc 13y ago
Interesting, I said 'solve the problem' but nothing really about capturing or fighting. Define the problem and solution broadly, and better ideas start coming out of the woodwork.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  Ok, one of the biggest problems in that time was the continuing spread of Communism, namely China. It wasn't solved. The global landscape would be far different today if China was never a communist state. Cuba is another example of an unsolved problem.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
How is the Vietnam war (US involvement 1961-1975) a prime example of the US military of the 40's and 50's? Wouldn't Korea (1950-1953), the occupation of Japan (1945-1952) or the occupation of Germany (1945-1949) be better examples?
- chaostheory 13y ago
  Guess who developed military theory that was used in the 60's? It was the guys in the 40's and 50's who were fighting conventional wars against conventional foes. > Wouldn't Korea (1950-1953), the occupation of Japan (1945-1952) or the occupation of Germany (1945-1949) be better examples? No, because military strategy evolves from military theory. Military theory doesn't happen overnight. It develops over time from hard lessons which almost always involve a lot of body bags. WWI is a prime example of this. You have outdated strategies and theory mixed with new weapons that no one was accustomed to using on a large scale. The lessons learned were applied to WWII by WWI veterans. I also don't lump 70's Vietnam with 60's Vietnam. We were beginning to develop effective strategies to mitigate the guerrillas. However public support at home was pretty much gone.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really the world isn't better for my smartass comments. > The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think outside the box. This isn't right. The problem was not enough people making comments like you did. The real opportunity, which you were supporting, was to not invade in the first place. You did more to make the world a better place than a lot of people (wrt this issue).

omegant 13y ago
There are a couple of books on the CIA and special forces operations on Afghanistan prior to the invasion. You can see how with some dozens of guys on the ground, some air superiority and some millions to buy loyalties, they had Afghanistan under control in 2 months. The problem is that the Army and the Marines wanted their part of the cake (National revenge and of course the glory), that pressure from the pentagon is what forced the invasion and the current situation. Most Afghanis wanted a change from the Taliban, they were ready to support a different Afghan government, the problem is that they hated even more a foreigner hanging around with tanks at their homeland that they hated the dumb and abusing Taliban.