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.

The above title says it all. I think it's time we had a open and frank discussion, dakka style, about the future of that tragic nation. Speaking as someone who's grandfather and great-grandfather fought in Afghanistan as part of various British Colonial adventures, what next? To me, it reminds me of that novel the forever war. Does anybody buy the anti-terror argument or liberating afghan women argument, or oil conspiracy argument? I could go on...
Can NATO withdraw on its terms, whilst leaving something half decent behind, or is this another fall of Saigon moment?

in the forever war, the problem was we couldn't communicate.

we can talk to the afghani people... the problem is they are irrational and hate filled, and the only way to solve that problem is through cleansing by fire.

NATO will do the right thing. If the right thing is propping up the Afghanistan until the right sort of corrupt puppet can be positioned (say another 5-6 years) and then leave them to it.

Of course when he inevitably gets over thrown by the next big thing then it will no longer be our problem and sleep safe in our beds while moaning about how the UN should be doing something about that.

McCrystal made a grevious error in public relations (which is what America is founded on- the ability to BS), and now has paid the price.

America will now have to pay the price in Afghanistan as a new commander must insert himself into a command that covers a hostile country, with limited resources on hand, and an objective which is impossible to achieve.

Given that however, the new commander is experienced in overseas combat operations and shouldn't have a difficult time integrating himself into the new theater of military police action.

(which is what America is founded on- the ability to BS),

Love it Probably one of the best quotes I've heard in years

the problem is they are irrational and hate filled, and the only way to solve that problem is through cleansing by fire.

I hope I'm not being offensive for you might have lost a friend or family member over there, but that sounds like it's from the A.Hitler book of geo-politics!!

Sadly, the UN will probably have to pick up the pieces. I can see it now - a total strength of 50 peacekeepers from Estonia or something like that!

Sorry my post must of been done around the same time (I did check, honest). My comment was:

Having read Task Force Black recently, it seemed that General Stanley McChrystal knew his business when it came to fighting a war. If this is the case it would seem very strange that President Obama has allowed the people below him to influence him enough that he feels he should allow General Stanley McChrystal to resign.

When it comes to fighting a conflict a general will know how this is done, it's his job. This doesn't mean you hand the whole situation over to the soldiers and say get on with it, you do have to have politics. However it does sound like some of the Presidents men feel they know best and are having a hissy fit because the General has told them in no uncertain terms that actually they know "jack s**t" and to keep their opinions to themselves. It will be interesting to see how it works out over there now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Honersstodnt wrote:in the forever war, the problem was we couldn't communicate.

we can talk to the afghani people... the problem is they are irrational and hate filled, and the only way to solve that problem is through cleansing by fire.

I think you will find that they are scared. As soon as the Allied troops move out of the area, the Taliban come back... and punish you if you don't do what they say. Bless him, he obviously feels that those gung ho statements like "if you grab their balls, their hearts and minds will follow" are real.

Having read Task Force Black recently, it seemed that General Stanley McChrystal knew his business when it came to fighting a war. If this is the case it would seem very strange that President Obama has allowed the people below him to influence him enough that he feels he should allow General Stanley McChrystal to resign.

The guy knew his business, but it boils down to elected civilains in a democracy being in charge of the military. At least that's what the BBC guy said!

Echoes of MacArthur here, when he was dismissed for 'similar' reasons, but I say similar because MacArthur wanted to nuke China! The Yanks don't make generals like they used to!!!

I really don't see why we couldn't have let the Russians have it back in the 80's

George Spiggott wrote:I really don't see why we couldn't have let the Russians have it back in the 80's

If you have seen Charlie Wilson's War, we kunningly allowed them to invade (Conservatives spin it as apparent weakness in the Cold War, what with three successive failed presidencies from Nixon to Carter in the US) and spend a huge amount of capitol in terms of money, military, and morale to invade a nation that only had a fraction of real interest to the Americans.

We should get the hell out of there now. Although the lives that have already been lost would have been in vain, it is an impossible effort to bring law to a fundamentally broken country with a medieval society.

It wouldn't be fixed in 10 years, let alone 1.

Mchrystal did a good job but his personal conduct created a rift between himself, his administration, and the civilian administration that oversees him. Hopefully Patreus will do as good a job or better. Don't know if I agree with what happened, but issues of chain of command can be major ones at his rank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skarwael wrote:We should get the hell out of there now. Although the lives that have already been lost would have been in vain, it is an impossible effort to bring law to a fundamentally broken country with a medieval society.

It wouldn't be fixed in 10 years, let alone 1.

This would end poorly visavis fundamentalist islamic terrorism in europe and america. Your own leaders have stated that thats the pragmatic reason for the continued efforts there. At least insofar as the UKs leadership is concerned the stability and independence of afghanistan is a distant second.

This is America. We dont lose wars. We lose interest.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:This is America. We dont lose wars. We lose interest.

Totally unlike Vietnam, amirite?

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:This is America. We dont lose wars. We lose interest.

Totally unlike Vietnam, amirite?

You know everyone hates you, amirite?


Learn sarcasm.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:This is America. We dont lose wars. We lose interest.

Totally unlike Vietnam, amirite?

You know everyone hates you, amirite?


Learn sarcasm.

Not nice at all.

But there is a point that as a democracy with a heavy influence from media, America does go periods in which wars we are fighting overseas takes a page ten relevancy to the next America Idol.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
You know everyone hates you, amirite?


Learn sarcasm.

You know you're not talking, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:
But there is a point that as a democracy with a heavy influence from media, America does go periods in which wars we are fighting overseas takes a page ten relevancy to the next America Idol.

The tendency for American interest to fluctuate has been cited as one of the driving reasons behind the use of terrorist tactics against the United States. The idea is, essentially, to use sporadic violence to ensure that the US continues to project a disproportionately expensive military force.

Honersstodnt wrote:we can talk to the afghani people... the problem is they are irrational and hate filled, and the only way to solve that problem is through cleansing by fire.

Please promise me you don't vote or contribute to politics in any way, shape or form. Seriously dude, you need to try reading.



It's a shame McChrystal is gone, by all reports he was very capable. I'm not really sure there's much choice besides, though. I really have no idea how that article got passed by his press relations team.

As to Afghanistan, basically I see one real objective - a government better than the Karzai government. People forget (or were never aware) that very few US and allied troops were used in overthrowing the Taliban, they were not popular and the force that defeated them was overwhelmingly made up of Afghani locals. Unfortunately we then put Karzai and his mob into power, possibly the only people on Earth odious enough to make some people prefer dealing with the Taliban. The US backed Abdullah Abdullah in the last election for a reason, which Karzai almost certainly stole. From now it's probably a case of seeking the removal of Karzai through another election, ensuring that one is fairly operated.

sebster wrote:It's a shame McChrystal is gone, by all reports he was very capable. I'm not really sure there's much choice besides, though. I really have no idea how that article got passed by his press relations team.

I agree, but of course General, especially a 4 star, is as much a political position as a military one. He forgot that and paid the price.

Stern glance and paternal tone adopted.

Obligatory reminder about forum rules


"amusing" macro.

..countdown to thread lock..

.. I'd rather not though..

Does someone have a link to the said Article? I'm not aware exactly how McChrystal was critical of the Presidency.

Petraeus is the same general who was attacked and belittled by Obama in 2007 over what proved to be his winning strategy in Iraq. Note that Obama spoke exactly long enough not to allow Petraeus to respond. Pure political posturing.

Petraeus, sounds like a Roman general sent to deal with the barbarians in Germania! Back on topic, the disunity at the top is no surprise, as they are divided over the long term goal. Part of this is Obama's fault by announcing a massive surge then a withdrawl. Bit like saying to the enemy your going to attack him big time then get the hell out of there.
What are the troops doing? Fighting Al Qaeda, propping up corruption, or a new branch of social worker, US Marine style ensuring that Afghan husbands are not treating their wives bad! Some many rhetorical questions. Even I'm confused!

He had to get the boot. You can't challenge/criticize the civilian control of the military. Especially since this is his second time doing this.

It's *stunning* to me that a soldier in his position would show so little respect for the chain of command. Some are trying to spin this as "Stanley's just a straight shooter," but he's a complete dolt IMO. If most of us would have enough tact and savvy not to mock our bosses in front of reporters, how in the halibut does he get to that level and do that?

@Wolfstan -- The civilian leadership may or may not know jack$hit about waging war, but there's a lot more involved with Afghanistan than waging war. Personally, the moment I read that McChrystal had a good relationship with Karzai was the moment I stopped being concerned that he's gone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/24/barack-obama-stanley-mcchrystal

..is this plausible or not then ?

No. He's in the middle of a fight. He would not want to be pulled out.

Would be fun though. Nice to se Obama obliterated in 2012 in that matter. Of course one argument being flushed around for firing is that he could reinstall Petraus who is a serious contender for said Obama obliteration in 2012.

@gorgon - You're right, there is more to Afghanistan than just waging war, however McCrystal is the one on the ground, so therefore he should be the one who knows best what the situation is. Whether the politicians are happy with that situation or want to it to change it is another thing. I can't see what you're problem is with Karzi, the US is only continuing it's grand tradition of backing scum. If they are prepared to fight on your side you are happy to be friends with them, even if they are corrupt b******s.

They only way we can win this conflict is for the population to trust their leaders and be looked after. Will this happen? I doubt it. There is a slim chance with the announcement of all that mineral wealth being found, but this relies on the government not lining their own pockets and the big multinationals not ripping them off the country.

Afghanistan is the grave yard of empires. Its not a country but aconglomeration of tribes. We went there to destroy alQaeda, not the Taliban.

I thought 'you' went there to destroy Al Qaeda AND the Taliban? The first one for perpetrating the 9/11 attacks and the second for sheltering them?

Albatross wrote:I thought 'you' went there to destroy Al Qaeda AND the Taliban? The first one for perpetrating the 9/11 attacks and the second for sheltering them?

Well most of the Taliban who were alive at the time are now dead...

Honersstodnt wrote:

we can talk to the afghani people... the problem is they are irrational and hate filled, and the only way to solve that problem is through cleansing by fire.

Now, Sebster et all have leapt straight onto this guys quote, but i must say that he isnt 100% incorrect. Being a two tour veteran of that place i must have sat through about a 100 intel briefings, i cant find much about it on the net as i dont doubt much of it is classified, but basically the system used to classify our enemies out there is a pyramid system similar to the food pyramid that people might have seen with regards to what food groups you should be consuming.



If you replace the bottom layers of the pyramid (water/rice and pasta etc) with "Lower Tier" or "Ten dollar Taliban" then you basically get the idea, it isnt complex. The great majority of the fighters can be brought back into the fold, and the plan is to fight them until they are willing to come to the table. And the plan works, it worked in Northern Ireland.If the IRA thought they could win by strength of arms they would never have agreed to a peace deal and a coalition government. The exact same idea is being attempted in Afghanistan. You show them that they cannot achieve their aims through force of arms and then you drag them to the table.

Now, the point im making is, we can rehabilitate the lowest few levels of the pyramid, be it by bribery, education or political assurances, but the "top tier Taliban" are the people that have been basically 100% indoctrinated and are assessed to be completely unwilling to give up the fight. Similar to RIRA over in Northern Ireland. When i did my tour over there in 2001 we were basically not too concerned with the Provisional IRA and were embroiled in an ongoing fight (and as far as i am aware it is still taking place) with the operatives that deemed that PIRA were too "weak" for engaging in a peace process and formed their own group, the "real IRA"

Anyway, ive started rambling as i am one to do when i start telling military based yarns, but what im getting at is this.

There is a whole bunch of guys over in Afghanistan sat at the top of that pyramid. And "KILL or ...capture" was always our orders with regards to them. So this guy isnt quite as wrong as many of you seem to think. Well.. except for the fire part, sadly flamethrowers and napalm are banned these days.