Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:The War on Drugs started in the early 20th century.

Well if you're gonna get all literal about things... there's been campaigns against illegal drugs in the US for a long time, but there's only been a War on Drugs since called it that in the 70s .

But anyway, point taken - I wasn't clear enough. Biden was on the sub-committee for crime and drugs for like ten years, and was the chair for much of that time. He's presently the chair of the Caucus on Narcotics Control. Basically, if you don't like US drug policy, you don't like Biden's policy.

Yes, the phrase War On Drugs was apparently coined by Richard Nixon in 1971. (The War On Terror dates to the 1980s, I believe... another great longterm success of western international relations.)

While I don't like US drug policy, I don't hold Biden solely and personally responsible for it, as he has merely continued a policy which has been in development arguably since the end of the Opium Wars.

It is one of my larger areas of disagreement with him.

Let's put it this way, if Biden dropped dead of a stroke tomorrow, there would not be a sudden change in US drug policy.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, the phrase War On Drugs was apparently coined by Richard Nixon in 1971. (The War On Terror dates to the 1980s, I believe... another great longterm success of western international relations.)

Ah, I didn't know that. I might hunt down a decent history of the war on terror, as its probably well worth knowing.

While I don't like US drug policy, I don't hold Biden solely and personally responsible for it, as he has merely continued a policy which has been in development arguably since the end of the Opium Wars.

Yeah, absolutely, I didn't mean to imply that it was all him. It probably wouldn't be all that different if anyone else was there, but he is there and its his policy.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, the phrase War On Drugs was apparently coined by Richard Nixon in 1971. (The War On Terror dates to the 1980s, I believe... another great longterm success of western international relations.)

While I don't like US drug policy, I don't hold Biden solely and personally responsible for it, as he has merely continued a policy which has been in development arguably since the end of the Opium Wars.

I would state the war on drugs began with this man;



Anslinger set the mood for how the government would fight the war on drugs for decades to come. You should Google some of his quotes (I included one in my earlier post).

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Gen Petreus is an mastermind at COIN (Counter Insurgency Ops) an his approach was the right one. Alot of mil-types wanted that approach and when we got it...well it worked.

Afghanistan...I worked with an Estonian Captain who fought in the Rus/Afghan war. He had a real hard on for the Governor of Herat, Ismail Khan, because he had killed a bunch of his guys during their war. But even he admitted that the way to make things work was just like in Iraq.

As to the rag tag nature of the opposition I have to disagree. These guys are being taught by combat vets from Chechnya, the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Iranian Quds types. They learn (to a point) from their mistakes. Each year we notice that more and more often they fight harder and better (not always smarter) and they don't give up.

We do need more troops...kind of like like a mini surge. Making FOBs/bases that support special ops teams that can travel out and help the Afghans seize and hold territory. Kind of like we are doing now but on a grander scale. But we also need more help from our NATO allies as well.

I don't question Petreus' mastery of COIN Ops. Just from the barest examination of his strategy its pretty clear that he is a commendable student of French imperial tactics, especially in Algeria. If Iraq is defined as a counter-insurgency operation, then the surge is absolutely the correct choice. Deploy troops to secure territory and thereby leverage the opposition into cooperating with you. The problem is that we don't need the insurgents to cooperate with us, we need them to cooperate with each other. Its one thing to get dissident factions to respect an imperial power, it is quite another to get them to respect one another enough to concede authority without violence. That said, the surge was really the only choice given the prior mismanagement of the war.

In terms of Afghanistan I think that a surge may be necessary in the future, but for the time being there needs to be a greater arbitrational force between the dissident factions in that nation. In particular we need to find a way to install a President who isn't completely ineffective.

My rag tag comment was primarily meant as a comment on the intelligence of the opposition. Indeed, I have a great deal of respect for the insurgents. The harshness of their everyday existence makes them well disposed to the project of warfare, at least in terms of their determination and toughness.

Edit: I appreciate your discussion, despite my tardiness in response. I rarely find people who have a nuanced perspective of military operations and history. And it is always good to hear from the enlisted.

Afghanistan doesn't sound to great at the moment

How do I say this? Given Afghanistan's violent and turbulent history through the millennium, should our goal be a democratized Afghanistan or one where Al Qauaeda is gone/nuetralized. I don't see this country getting better no matter what we do. It could potentially be made moderately harmless, but more than that?

I'm tired of spending billions on other nations when we have our own needs. Frankly the "we broke it we bought it" rule somewhat applies to Iraq, but Afghanistan held the people that attacked us. We have no obligation other to make sure the ones who attacked us can never attack us again.

But if we relentlessly pursue our enemies through whatever borders we see fit we might have more enemies than we started with when we eliminate the original. Simply cutting our way across the map and telling every country we move through "we don't really have any money for you guys. So ummm... deal with it, terrorism." isn't really going to fly in most places.

Agreed Typline. I'll note though Afghanistan was the first country and the one that actually attacked us.

To be fair, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban actually attacked us. It was Al-Queda, who was being harbored by Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

On a side note, am I the only one who gets hungry for quesadillas every time he sees the name "Al-Queda"?

Frazzled wrote:How do I say this? Given Afghanistan's violent and turbulent history through the millennium, should our goal be a democratized Afghanistan or one where Al Qauaeda is gone/nuetralized. I don't see this country getting better no matter what we do. It could potentially be made moderately harmless, but more than that?

I'm tired of spending billions on other nations when we have our own needs. Frankly the "we broke it we bought it" rule somewhat applies to Iraq, but Afghanistan held the people that attacked us. We have no obligation other to make sure the ones who attacked us can never attack us again.

Until they adopt a more secular republic there is little hope for that country.

gorgon wrote:To be fair, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban actually attacked us. It was Al-Queda, who was being harbored by Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

On a side note, am I the only one who gets hungry for quesadillas every time he sees the name "Al-Queda"?

Your brain is linking Qaeda with queso... now I'm thinking of it. Thanks a lot gorgon
Oh wait its almost lunchtime, I foresee enchiladas in my future

I think that the UN colalition that is currently running ops in Afghanistan should look at ponying up more of the money to help restore the country. But honestly the country was a complete shambles before we got there. They have had some sort of war going for the last 30 years.

Unlike Iraq, the vast majority of the population is uneducated, illiterate and lives like they have for centuries. That country needs serious help.

On top of that they have no real resources to generate money. Some limited natural gas, wheat (it's actually worth something this year), semi-precious stones and of course the majority of the World's poppy. Hell, the country only has 10 miles of train rail laid down running from the north into the Herat region.

AoS

Frazzled wrote:How do I say this? Given Afghanistan's violent and turbulent history through the millennium, should our goal be a democratized Afghanistan or one where Al Qauaeda is gone/nuetralized. I don't see this country getting better no matter what we do. It could potentially be made moderately harmless, but more than that?

I'm tired of spending billions on other nations when we have our own needs. Frankly the "we broke it we bought it" rule somewhat applies to Iraq, but Afghanistan held the people that attacked us. We have no obligation other to make sure the ones who attacked us can never attack us again.

The trouble is where does that stop?

The Taleban and Al Quaeda are in the tribal provinces of Pakistan's NW frontier. We haven't run them out of Afghanistan because they keep coming in and attacking NATO troops. When US forces cross the border and attack them in Pakistan, it annoys the Pakistanis (who are meant to be our allies) and further destabilises their rather shakey democracy.

Without clear signs that our troops are getting the upper hand, we can't convincingly say we have beaten the terrorists. I don't see how we can nation build Afghanistan while it is the site of a terrorist insurgency created by the previous extremist government.

Can we hold on in Afghanistan for years and decades, just to suppress the terrorists? How much do they need Afghanistan as a base for organisation and training -- is it their only sanctuary?

It is not their only sanctuary.

That's what I thought.

Suppressing terrorists in Afghanistan is not very helpful if they pop up elsewhere.

Although the Taleban camps were useful for training insurgents, they were not necessary for recruiting extremists, or for training the pilots who flew the 9/11 planes, or for making the money that paid for the operation.

Its been quite helpful. Many of them are now dead. The question becomes, what do we do now?

*Terrorists are still at least in one region (Afghan/Pakistan border), along with the Taliban.

*As noted, historically the tribes and groups tend to fight it out, er constantly.

*Attempts by non-Afghanis to maintain control/raise up the country have not been...productive.

*If we quit supporting the current regime the Taliban could flood back in. Does that mean we stay their indefinitely?

*Hence the issue. We don't want to be there. We didn't start that war. How do you finish it short of going Mongol/Soviet?

Pull out?

Then what?

.. tradition would dictate making your excuses and phoning for a cab yes ? ba-dump tish !

Seriously, we partially got into this mess because no one asked after arming the mujis to fight the Rooskies-"then what." Lets not repeat the error and ask it now.

No matter the proposed action- then what?

Frazzled wrote:Then what?

Save a lot of lives and money.

The way I see it is that we're not preventing preparation for terrorism because it goes on elsewhere, we're providing a training ground for insurgents (as in Iraq) and an excuse for extremists to recruit people.

We can't win, at least not in any reasonable amount of time, so it's better to get out earlier rather than later.

1. How are we providing a trianing ground? They were already there, remember?

2. Saying Save a lot of lives and money doesn't answer the question.

3. We can't win is not an answer. If we leave then what happens? Do the Taliban come back? Does Al Qaeda come back? Are we prepared for that? If not what are we going to do?

This ain't Iraq. We were forced to go there (well ok we could have just nuked the place and solved the problem). We're there now. The Taliban is still there. Al Qaeda is still somewhat within the region. We have to think two steps down the line for every action we do or don't do here.

1. We're giving them someone to fight against.

2. Yes it does. We can use the resources for more profitable purposes elsewhere.

3. Yes it is. Only a fool continues in a war they can't win. It won't matter to us if the Taleban and Al Quaeda come back into Afghanistan. Kicking them out of Afghanistan has not done anything to reduce their operational capability for terrorist acts like 9/11, 7/7, the bombs in Bali, Madrid and so on. They are doing well enough in Pakistan's tribal areas. They still have their ideological and financial base in Saudi Arabia, and their supporters throughout the muslim world are encouraged by their stand against us in Afghanistan.

We weren't forced to go to Iraq. Hussein had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and no WMDs. He was too weak to do anything against any of his neighbours. We could have left him swinging in the wind quite happily until he died of natural causes.

I agree with thinking two steps down the line. The lack of strategic thinking is what got us into these messes.

Why do you keep talking about Iraq? We're talking about Afghanistan.

2. Ok we pull out. Taliban comes back. Al Qaeda comes back. We now look weak for not having destroyed them, something you don't dare do in a land where weakness makes you an attractive target.
Then what do we do?

Thats my point. I don't care one whit about Afghanistan. I don't care about what government's there or not there. I only care that the terrorists and their supporters are dead. but I don't want to create a vaccum that is again filled by terrorists.

So again I ask. What do we do?

The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are linked by the actions of the CotW, and the mainly Islamic religious identity of the countries.

What we do is what I have suggested, give up, look weak, and do something better instead.

The world won't fall apart because the CotW looks weak for a bit.

WE didn't do anything after Khobar, then they attacked the WTC, then they attacked the COler then they attacked the African embassies, then they took down the WTC. Finally we fought back in a big way.

Looking weak invites attack unless you're doing something massively different. What would you do? We tried the "leave em alone" approach after the Soviets pulled out and got the Taliban.