Getting Out Of Afghanistan

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ultimately, I think we have to enlist the countries of the region to fight this fight (defeating ISIS). If not, we are there forever. ISIS is a threat to the government of every country in the region. Would they be more motivated if we did less? I particularly do not understand countries such as Turkey who do absolutely nothing. I did not wish to see Kobani fall but, it would be interesting to see how the Turks responded to an ISIS stronghold on their border.

[caleb1633 1,418]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is something that takes a VERY long time to do, especially in a place like Afghanistan where people live like it's the 1600s. If our CLEAR objective is that we want to eradicate those that aided Al Qaeda, then it is our duty to fight the war that we've decided (or been forced) to go into. You never get the war you want. We wanted a quick, decisive war utilizing the Afghan Warlords supported by ODAs calling in pulverizing airstrikes. Well it wasn't that simple. We underestimated the amount of people in Afghanistan who had connections with the Taliban, and the lack of consideration for collateral damage, along with the Iraq war, enabled the Taliban to grow strong under our nose. At that point we realized that the situation was not as simple as we had originally hoped and were forced to change strategies. That's what happens sometimes in war.. You have to change strategies to reach your objective. Our objective was to eradicate those who support terrorism, specifically those who aided Al Qaeda in 9/11. So if we are set on achieving that objective, we have to be prepared to pay the price to win the war daily for potentially a long period of time.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Well stated!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is fruitless.

I still don't believe there is anything we could have done short of governing Iraq ourselves indefinitely (a bigger mistake) that would have prevented the rise of ISIS. ISIS was born in Syria and only found a home in Iraq because Maliki had alienated the Iraqi Sunnis.

[caleb1633 1,418]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is fruitless.

I still don't believe there is anything we could have done short of governing Iraq ourselves indefinitely (a bigger mistake) that would have prevented the rise of ISIS. ISIS was born in Syria and only found a home in Iraq because Maliki had alienated the Iraqi Sunnis.

Nation building isn't necessarily fruitless. It just takes a long time to do it. You have to change an entire culture. A car wreck takes seconds to happen and hours to clean up. Same way with nation building; they didn't get their culture overnight, and a new one won't be established overnight either. All it comes down to is determining if the juice is worth the squeeze. The decision for that is well above my pay grade.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is something that takes a VERY long time to do, especially in a place like Afghanistan where people live like it's the 1600s. If our CLEAR objective is that we want to eradicate those that aided Al Qaeda, then it is our duty to fight the war that we've decided (or been forced) to go into. You never get the war you want. We wanted a quick, decisive war utilizing the Afghan Warlords supported by ODAs calling in pulverizing airstrikes. Well it wasn't that simple. We underestimated the amount of people in Afghanistan who had connections with the Taliban, and the lack of consideration for collateral damage, along with the Iraq war, enabled the Taliban to grow strong under our nose. At that point we realized that the situation was not as simple as we had originally hoped and were forced to change strategies. That's what happens sometimes in war.. You have to change strategies to reach your objective. Our objective was to eradicate those who support terrorism, specifically those who aided Al Qaeda in 9/11. So if we are set on achieving that objective, we have to be prepared to pay the price to win the war daily for potentially a long period of time.

It was the longest war in our history, was it not? Without the support of neighboring countries, in this case Pakistan primarily, is the objective realistic?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is fruitless.

I still don't believe there is anything we could have done short of governing Iraq ourselves indefinitely (a bigger mistake) that would have prevented the rise of ISIS. ISIS was born in Syria and only found a home in Iraq because Maliki had alienated the Iraqi Sunnis.

Nation building isn't necessarily fruitless. It just takes a long time to do it. You have to change an entire culture. A car wreck takes seconds to happen and hours to clean up. Same way with nation building; they didn't get their culture overnight, and a new one won't be established overnight either. All it comes down to is determining if the juice is worth the squeeze. The decision for that is well above my pay grade.

Have we ever been successful, nation building? I can't immediately think of an example. Even so, in light of the many failed attempts, if it is not fruitless, is it practical?

[caleb1633 1,418]

No not in this case. Pakistan should've been held accountable as well. The fact that Bin Laden was living there for years right next to their version of West Point and they never had to stand before the world court blows my mind.

*This was in reply to the post about Pakistan*

Honestly, I don't think nation building is practical. We have new leadership constantly and are too fickle as a country to truly stay the course with turning around another country for the long term.

[Auburn06 76]

We had no business going there in the first place, need to fix ourselves first before trying to police other countries.

[homersapien 11,362]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is fruitless.

I still don't believe there is anything we could have done short of governing Iraq ourselves indefinitely (a bigger mistake) that would have prevented the rise of ISIS. ISIS was born in Syria and only found a home in Iraq because Maliki had alienated the Iraqi Sunnis.

Nation building isn't necessarily fruitless. It just takes a long time to do it. You have to change an entire culture. A car wreck takes seconds to happen and hours to clean up. Same way with nation building; they didn't get their culture overnight, and a new one won't be established overnight either. All it comes down to is determining if the juice is worth the squeeze. The decision for that is well above my pay grade.

Have we ever been successful, nation building? I can't immediately think of an example. Even so, in light of the many failed attempts, if it is not fruitless, is it practical?

The whole idea is a myth. Nations cannot be created from the outside. They have to evolve.

The best you can do - given enough time - is to maybe introduce a structure of legal institutions that can be built on. But that really demands colonization, which is an archaic concept. Regardless, at some point you have to leave. Otherwise your client will eventually revolt.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

No not in this case. Pakistan should've been held accountable as well. The fact that Bin Laden was living there for years right next to their version of West Point and they never had to stand before the world court blows my mind.

*This was in reply to the post about Pakistan*

Honestly, I don't think nation building is practical. We have new leadership constantly and are too fickle as a country to truly stay the course with turning around another country for the long term.

I don't believe it is being "fickle". I do not see it as practical. I also do not see it as a prudent use of our military considering the costs and other potential threats in the world.

[caleb1633 1,418]

No not in this case. Pakistan should've been held accountable as well. The fact that Bin Laden was living there for years right next to their version of West Point and they never had to stand before the world court blows my mind.

*This was in reply to the post about Pakistan*

Honestly, I don't think nation building is practical. We have new leadership constantly and are too fickle as a country to truly stay the course with turning around another country for the long term.

I don't believe it is being "fickle". I do not see it as practical. I also do not see it as a prudent use of our military considering the costs and other potential threats in the world.

By "fickle" I mean that our priorities shift too often to really give a crap long enough to actually want to stay in a country 30 years where there's so little in it for us.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

No not in this case. Pakistan should've been held accountable as well. The fact that Bin Laden was living there for years right next to their version of West Point and they never had to stand before the world court blows my mind.

*This was in reply to the post about Pakistan*

Honestly, I don't think nation building is practical. We have new leadership constantly and are too fickle as a country to truly stay the course with turning around another country for the long term.

I don't believe it is being "fickle". I do not see it as practical. I also do not see it as a prudent use of our military considering the costs and other potential threats in the world.

By "fickle" I mean that our priorities shift too often to really give a crap long enough to actually want to stay in a country 30 years where there's so little in it for us.

I understand. However, do you believe we should devote the time, the lives, the money, and resources to such an endeavor?

[cptau 169]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it takes a long time to establish a democracy. We were still shedding blood in the U.S. one hundred years after our constitution was written, debating how democracy (a republic really) should be run. To this day we still don't agree on it.

Now you go into a country that has zero desire and limited infrastructure capable of establishing a democracy, and we expect them to get it together in less than 10, 15, 20 years? It takes a LONG time to change a culture. So either we don't get involved or we stay the course until that culture is changed.

Unfortunately, as a country we lack the resolve necessary to finish an irregular war. Every opponent in the world knows that the best way to defeat America is "death by a thousand cuts". Being fully committed to victory doesn't just mean going in heavy handed with all the power we can muster, it means outlasting our enemy.

I agree with most of your post. However, I am not sure the issue is resolve. We did a pretty good job with the first Gulf War. We had a clear objective and we achieved it. Perhaps in the case of "irregular" war, we have to reexamine our objectives and tactics?

That was a very modest and limited objective compared to the "nation building" goals we took on more recently.

Exactly. Nation building is fruitless.

I still don't believe there is anything we could have done short of governing Iraq ourselves indefinitely (a bigger mistake) that would have prevented the rise of ISIS. ISIS was born in Syria and only found a home in Iraq because Maliki had alienated the Iraqi Sunnis.

Nation building isn't necessarily fruitless. It just takes a long time to do it. You have to change an entire culture. A car wreck takes seconds to happen and hours to clean up. Same way with nation building; they didn't get their culture overnight, and a new one won't be established overnight either. All it comes down to is determining if the juice is worth the squeeze. The decision for that is well above my pay grade.

Have we ever been successful, nation building? I can't immediately think of an example. Even so, in light of the many failed attempts, if it is not fruitless, is it practical?

Japan and West Germany. We occupied both for many years and forced them to change their forms of government. We had pretty much destroyed both countries in WWII. We helped them rebuild with foreign aid. The difference with Germany and Japan is they wanted to build their countries back to be modern countries and to stay away from the use of military force except in defense.

[caleb1633 1,418]

No not in this case. Pakistan should've been held accountable as well. The fact that Bin Laden was living there for years right next to their version of West Point and they never had to stand before the world court blows my mind.

*This was in reply to the post about Pakistan*

Honestly, I don't think nation building is practical. We have new leadership constantly and are too fickle as a country to truly stay the course with turning around another country for the long term.

I don't believe it is being "fickle". I do not see it as practical. I also do not see it as a prudent use of our military considering the costs and other potential threats in the world.

By "fickle" I mean that our priorities shift too often to really give a crap long enough to actually want to stay in a country 30 years where there's so little in it for us.

I understand. However, do you believe we should devote the time, the lives, the money, and resources to such an endeavor?

That's way above my paygrade, but I would say a heavy emphasis on FID utilizing MARSOC and ODAs. Limited footprint, limited casualties, and it trains the nation to fend for itself. These terrorist groups and insurgent cells have no noticeable command and control structure for the most part. Usually they're operating independently based on broad intent from a figure head. Therefore we can't fight them conventionally. We have to resort to alternative tactics. If they wanna beat us with "death by a thousand cuts", then we give them cancer by having the host nation that's supporting them gradually turn on them.

[Strychnine 1,802]

As caleb has said, nation-building is a very long-term and expensive endeavor. Afghanistan is probably one of the worst places in the world to attempt it. It is not possible to achieve a quick victory and "democratize" people to the extent that they become self reliant in a matter of years by occupation, when they have had nothing resembling stability since the late 1970's. Also, they have Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east. I have no doubt that there were powerful interests in both of those countries doing all they could to help undermine our efforts. Finally, Afghanistan was not really a modern society before the country devolved into chaos. No one there under the age of 55 is likely to have any recollection of what it was like there when the United States and Soviet Union were both vying for influence by developing their infrastructure.

Germany and Japan are oft-cited examples of successful nation-building, and to an extent, they very much are. However, they are also not remotely comparable with nation-building in a place like Afghanistan or even Iraq. Prior to World War II, Germany was still reeling from World War I (which ended their empire), but they were every bit a modern society. Japan was the head of an aggressively expanding modern empire. In the aftermath, they quickly came to terms with the fact that most of the people that were previously destroying their country were actually now willing to help them rebuild it (and protect them from the Soviets). The people of both also had what would be a first-world standard of living and education at the time, which is important as it makes the people more likely to understand the differences between what was, what is, and what could be (and thus be more likely to cooperate).

[alexava 6,973]

As caleb has said, nation-building is a very long-term and expensive endeavor. Afghanistan is probably one of the worst places in the world to attempt it. It is not possible to achieve a quick victory and "democratize" people to the extent that they become self reliant in a matter of years by occupation, when they have had nothing resembling stability since the late 1970's. Also, they have Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east. I have no doubt that there were powerful interests in both of those countries doing all they could to help undermine our efforts. Finally, Afghanistan was not really a modern society before the country devolved into chaos. No one there under the age of 55 is likely to have any recollection of what it was like there when the United States and Soviet Union were both vying for influence by developing their infrastructure.

Germany and Japan are oft-cited examples of successful nation-building, and to an extent, they very much are. However, they are also not remotely comparable with nation-building in a place like Afghanistan or even Iraq. Prior to World War II, Germany was still reeling from World War I (which ended their empire), but they were every bit a modern society. Japan was the head of an aggressively expanding modern empire. In the aftermath, they quickly came to terms with the fact that most of the people that were previously destroying their country were actually now willing to help them rebuild it (and protect them from the Soviets). The people of both also had what would be a first-world standard of living and education at the time, which is important as it makes the people more likely to understand the differences between what was, what is, and what could be (and thus be more likely to cooperate).

neither country (especially Japan ) had a vast population of religious extremists.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Perhaps there is a difference between "nation building" and, rebuilding a nation?

[homersapien 11,362]

Japan and West Germany. We occupied both for many years and forced them to change their forms of government. We had pretty much destroyed both countries in WWII. We helped them rebuild with foreign aid. The difference with Germany and Japan is they wanted to build their countries back to be modern countries and to stay away from the use of military force except in defense.

As others already said, that's hardly the same a nation building starting with a tribal society without a national heritage.

[Strychnine 1,802]

As caleb has said, nation-building is a very long-term and expensive endeavor. Afghanistan is probably one of the worst places in the world to attempt it. It is not possible to achieve a quick victory and "democratize" people to the extent that they become self reliant in a matter of years by occupation, when they have had nothing resembling stability since the late 1970's. Also, they have Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east. I have no doubt that there were powerful interests in both of those countries doing all they could to help undermine our efforts. Finally, Afghanistan was not really a modern society before the country devolved into chaos. No one there under the age of 55 is likely to have any recollection of what it was like there when the United States and Soviet Union were both vying for influence by developing their infrastructure.

Germany and Japan are oft-cited examples of successful nation-building, and to an extent, they very much are. However, they are also not remotely comparable with nation-building in a place like Afghanistan or even Iraq. Prior to World War II, Germany was still reeling from World War I (which ended their empire), but they were every bit a modern society. Japan was the head of an aggressively expanding modern empire. In the aftermath, they quickly came to terms with the fact that most of the people that were previously destroying their country were actually now willing to help them rebuild it (and protect them from the Soviets). The people of both also had what would be a first-world standard of living and education at the time, which is important as it makes the people more likely to understand the differences between what was, what is, and what could be (and thus be more likely to cooperate).

neither country (especially Japan ) had a vast population of religious extremists.

Perhaps you forgot about kamikaze aircraft and banzai charges. The Japanese state religion (Shinto) included the consideration of the Emperor as divine. That's one of the reasons MacArthur had it removed as their state religion.

[caleb1633 1,418]

One major difference is that Japan and Germany were used to a singular figurehead in charge of their country. In Afghanistan the tribal elders and warlords run the show for their separate tribes and clans. Taking away the power from them and giving it all to a centralized government is only going to incite anger. I can't remember who it was, but he actually suggested that we should've installed a feudal system in Iraq. It probably would've been much more effective. Not every country should have a democracy. Just because it worked in America (and that's debatable nowadays) doesn't mean it would work everywhere. Nation building is impossible if you try and force a square peg in a round hole.

[WarTim 3,456]

I believe it's a combination of poor planning, failed Intel, a lack of understanding in the region, emotions, politics........politics. At least on our side. When you don't have a clear objective and a good contingency plan in place you end up with a mess.

If you set an unrealistic goal the planning doesn't really matter.

I knew it would happen one day. Homey...I agree.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

I believe it's a combination of poor planning, failed Intel, a lack of understanding in the region, emotions, politics........politics. At least on our side. When you don't have a clear objective and a good contingency plan in place you end up with a mess.

If you set an unrealistic goal the planning doesn't really matter.

I knew it would happen one day. Homey...I agree.

You two are more alike than you think!

[WarTim 3,456]

I believe it's a combination of poor planning, failed Intel, a lack of understanding in the region, emotions, politics........politics. At least on our side. When you don't have a clear objective and a good contingency plan in place you end up with a mess.

If you set an unrealistic goal the planning doesn't really matter.

I knew it would happen one day. Homey...I agree.

You two are more alike than you think!

Two things. #1 NO. #2 I just threw up a little...

[homersapien 11,362]

I believe it's a combination of poor planning, failed Intel, a lack of understanding in the region, emotions, politics........politics. At least on our side. When you don't have a clear objective and a good contingency plan in place you end up with a mess.

If you set an unrealistic goal the planning doesn't really matter.

I knew it would happen one day. Homey...I agree.

You two are more alike than you think!

:-\ We're both Auburn fans.

I think that pretty much covers it.