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.

Rule no.1 of beating insurgencies is to prevent the guerillas from having a safe haven.

That's why it is important to sort out Pakistan, and Afghani society. That's why it's going to be so difficult.

I'd rather sort out Tahiti. I'll personally lead the invasion to sort out that little terrorist paradise.

That's why you need to be willing to kill civilians and "innocents". Until the government is willing to do that, any action there is doomed to failure.

Rule no.1 of beating insurgencies is to prevent the guerillas from having a safe haven.

Actually rule no.1 is to avoid aiding in their recruitment while defeating them militarily. An insurgency that draws recruits from the occupied populace is unbeatable, as the more you kill them the more you've killed the populace you're protecting and the easier they are to recruit to the insurgency.

Safe havens are simply places of easy recruitment and training.

Unless you wipe out absolutely everything in the safe haven of course.

Frazzled wrote:Unless you wipe out absolutely everything in the safe haven of course.

Which has the aggregate effect of recruiting insurgents in other areas, appalled at the heavy handed use of genocide. Eventually other countries will stop aiding us. Then they will start hindering us. All the while the insurgency changes focus from islamofacism to Anti American..-ism. Sorry, but war crimes is the worst thing you can do to end an insurgency in modern times. One camera cellphone can turn the entire planet against you.

Worked pretty good for the Chinese in Tibet.
EDIT: Before you start foaming at the mouth I am not recommending that. Indeed I am making no recommendation, other than to listen to whoever's been over there besides the armchair mouthbreathers that most of us are.

Frazzled wrote:Worked pretty good for the Chinese in Tibet.

Not really. They still have plenty of issues there, and they had far less to worry about than todays multinational global economy and media world. It's a different world now, what was great for china would get their economy demolished in modern times.

Well to Hell with this, and to Hell with the Afghans! Someone needs to go Nott on their ass and teach them a lesson! Western powers need to saddle up or get out. Was that jingoistic enough for everyone?

I think that until we answer two questions, we're just spinning our wheels. One, what are we comfortable calling a "win" in Afghanistan? Two, are we able to accomplish that with the level of troops, and level of engagement, that will be supported by the country and the rest of the world? Often, it does take massive civilian reprisals, indiscriminate bombing, etc. to win against an insurgency, and it's still not a quick process. The French weren't exactly dainty in Algeria, and were arguably winning by the end, but the public couldn't support the losses anymore.

Redbeard wrote:That's why you need to be willing to kill civilians and "innocents". Until the government is willing to do that, any action there is doomed to failure.

Ask the French how that worked out for them in Algeria.

Polonius wrote: The French weren't exactly dainty in Algeria, and were arguably winning by the end, but the public couldn't support the losses anymore.

Well, that's what I get for not reading the whole thread.

You're spot on though. Military force can overcome an insurgency, but it requires a great deal of will power on behalf of the controlling authority. France had a long, publicly celebrated, Imperial history at the time of the Algerian insurgency. America has only briefly held a similar empire, and never one approaching the same scale. The closest we've come is governance by SOFA, which doesn't have the same kind of rallying affect on the public.

Gotta say I pretty much agree with the folks saying it is a lot more complicated that 'be willing to kill loads of people'. That has a long history of fail because you don't win by killing every insurgent as that's plainly impossible, you win by removing support for the insurgency. Killing, especially indiscriminate killing, only strengthens support for the insurgents. You're already in their country, so you have to be a hell of a lot better than them if you're going to convince people to stop helping them.

The big factor with the Taliban is that unlike many past insurgencies they're not that popular among the general population. A lot of their resources are coerced from the general population, or come from the drug trade. A functioning, non-corrupt, non-jackass Afghan government with NATO support could succeed, but we don't have that. To me, the issue is primarily about fixing the Afghan government.

Dogma will likely come along to tell me I'm wrong, and I'm kind of looking forward to finding out why.

sebster wrote:
Dogma will likely come along to tell me I'm wrong, and I'm kind of looking forward to finding out why.

I've been summoned! Though you'll be happy to know you're not wrong. Though you're not quite right either.

sebster wrote:
The big factor with the Taliban is that unlike many past insurgencies they're not that popular among the general population.

This is true, but a complication arises from the fact that the dominant culture in Afghanistan isn't that far off from what the Taliban stands for. They lack broad support for 4 reasons:
1) They proved to be just as corrupt as the Afghani natives feared the Northern Alliance would be (which was also proven correct).
2) They interfered in tribal affairs while they were in power, and the Afghani people aren't accustomed to governance.
3) They taxed opium shipments at an exceptionally high rate.
4) They've become more violent than they were in the course of their initial takeover. Mostly because they are actually meeting resistance this time. Their rise during the mid-90's was largely non-violent by dearth of immediate surrender.

sebster wrote:
A lot of their resources are coerced from the general population, or come from the drug trade. A functioning, non-corrupt, non-jackass Afghan government with NATO support could succeed, but we don't have that. To me, the issue is primarily about fixing the Afghan government.

In practical terms the best we can hope for is a state that isn't hostile to the West, is in agreement with Afghani cultural standards, and is sufficiently free of corruption for the maintenance of legitimacy.

Unfortunately, Afghani culture isn't defined by Western standards of national membership (if an Afghan see's himself as a member of a nation at all it is very unlikely to be his primary point of allegiance), so corruption will be a significant problem in any non-authoritarian state. Tangentially, since its unlikely that a truly autonomous Afghani government will be friendly to the US without support/pressure, we're looking at continuing project of varying types of aid to ensure that ambivalence doesn't lead to the formation of another terrorist safe-zone. All of which is further complicated by the fact that the installation of either an authoritarian state, or a democratic state which the Afghani people will accept, is unlikely to go over well at home.

I do agree with you that ultimate victory has to be based on nation-building, or at least the discreet construction of an authoritarian puppet state. I'm just not sure its possible to do either. Sometimes it seems like stabilizing Pakistan would be easier. If we did that it would become much easier to wash our hands of Afghanistan.

Let's turn Afghanistan into a parking lot and then turn Pakistan into a theme park! That would stop the insurgents, put this part of the world out of its misery, and stop the opium trade! I for one think this will finally bring equality to that region. Love the idea, now I just have to find the "football" that follows the President....

dogma wrote:I've been summoned! Though you'll be happy to know you're not wrong. Though you're not quite right either.

I have the same feeling that you get in primary school when a teacher gives you points for effort...

This is true, but a complication arises from the fact that the dominant culture in Afghanistan isn't that far off from what the Taliban stands for. They lack broad support for 4 reasons:
1) They proved to be just as corrupt as the Afghani natives feared the Northern Alliance would be (which was also proven correct).
2) They interfered in tribal affairs while they were in power, and the Afghani people aren't accustomed to governance.
3) They taxed opium shipments at an exceptionally high rate.
4) They've become more violent than they were in the course of their initial takeover. Mostly because they are actually meeting resistance this time. Their rise during the mid-90's was largely non-violent by dearth of immediate surrender.

That makes sense, I took the reporting of Taliban popularity at face value. It seems obvious now that 'Taliban unpopular' was pretty superficial.

In practical terms the best we can hope for is a state that isn't hostile to the West, is in agreement with Afghani cultural standards, and is sufficiently free of corruption for the maintenance of legitimacy.

True, I don't think the bar needs to be set at that high a level. No viable government is going to meet our standards of women's rights, due process, and the like. But a basic, not too corrupt government that doesn't support itself by stoking a hatred of the West is achievable.

I do agree with you that ultimate victory has to be based on nation-building, or at least the discreet construction of an authoritarian puppet state. I'm just not sure its possible to do either. Sometimes it seems like stabilizing Pakistan would be easier. If we did that it would become much easier to wash our hands of Afghanistan.

There's been a lot of money piled in to Pakistan to keep it stable. I'm not convinced it was money well spent. The issue there has never been a shortage of Western funds, it's been the political will to make sure that money was spent on practical purposes, and not just used to put more tanks on the border with India.

Pakistan should have been the primary target all along, or at least, it's sponge-like border. This is pretty unpalatable, granted.

You're right. The trouble is that going into Pakistan mob-handed would probably have caused more trouble than it would be worth. I don't think we can do it even now, so it's best to operate on the Afghan side of the border.

sebster wrote:
There's been a lot of money piled in to Pakistan to keep it stable. I'm not convinced it was money well spent. The issue there has never been a shortage of Western funds, it's been the political will to make sure that money was spent on practical purposes, and not just used to put more tanks on the border with India.

Yeah. Neither option is particularly attractive from a standpoint of ease.

Any realistic solution is likely to incorporate a mix of political pressure on Pakistan, and military pressure on the Taliban/insurgency. The military action gives us leverage on Islamabad, and helps to shield them from the repercussions inherent in dealing openly with the US.

Its actually not a terrible plan. Once you place the strategic onus on Pakistan it becomes far easier to distract the populace from the fact that the Afghani government emerging from our involvement has very little to do with democratic ideals. Of course, that doesn't circumvent the problem of national will as any diplomatic pressure on Pakistan will take time to bear fruit. There's also the matter of leaving Afghanistan with what is likely to be perceived, publicly, as a failure.

If there was a way to persuade Pakistan to countenance UN troops/peacekeepers guarding their borders with Afghanistan, it MIGHT take SOME of the sting out of the Afghan insurgency situation. It's pretty much well understood that they are being reinforced from Pakistan.

But that's wishful thinking, I reckon.