Victory Impossible!
That’s the lede in this Times of London article quoting a Brit general re Afghanistan, whose troops have been bloodied fighting a Taliban that seems endlessly capable of replenishing itself despite heavy losses. Damn, that sounds familiar. That’s what they used to say about Iraq. Though when you get into it, that isn’t exactly what he’s saying: Don’t give up. More troops, more counterinsurgency, cut political deals, divide and conquer. Because, when you get into it, what he’s describing is Afghanistan. Victory possibilities roundup:
What’s this? I thought all was bleakness and despair. CNN: Taliban split with al-Qaeda, in Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan govt.
The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, has been involved four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, says the source.
The talks — the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan — mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.
They also mark a sidestepping of key “war on terror” ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan.
According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — high on the U.S. military’s most-wanted list — was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.
Details of the Taliban leader’s split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.
The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict.
But U.S.- and Europe-friendly Saudi Arabia’s involvement has been propelled by a mounting death toll among coalition troops amid a worsening violence that has also claimed many civilian casualties.
That doesn’t make much sense. Since when did Saudi Arabi give a damn about dead infidels? Maybe they are finally getting embarrassed by their cave-dwelling brothers. Oh, here we go:
The involvement of the Saudis is also seen as an expression of fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.
Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul.
This is also interesting:
The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can’t win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.
That’s something you don’t see in the anti-western western press.
Canada’s been doing its bit in Afghanistan. Here’s Eric Margolis arguing for a negotiated peace to end that war. He’s eager for Karzai to negotiate from a position of weakness: Bring the troops home! Includes a fun snippet of chat and doggerel:
I recently asked Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s former senior adviser, how this seemingly impossible war could be won. His eyes dancing with imperial hubris, Rove replied, “More Predators (missile armed drones) and helicopters!” Which reminded me of poet Hilaire Belloc’s wonderful line about British imperialism, “Whatever happens/we have got/the Maxim gun/and they have not.”
Elections due next year, and the Taliban is meddling with the registration process. Reuters.
Gates to NATO allies: Step up or pay up. NATO risks split between those willing to fight and Eurowussies … you know who you are. Reuters.
Baltimore Sun: Candidates offer no clear path on Afghanistan. Afghan theater commander McKiernan on the need for (A) more troops and (B) a political solution.
You’d think at this late date, we wouldn’t have to explain to assorted Brit, Canuck and Yank scribblers that those two are not mutually exclusive, but in fact in a modern counterinsurgency you aren’t likely to have one without the other. Anyone else glad that Petraeus is at the helm in Centcom?
Small Wars Journal offers up a Brit colonel’s Cambridge dissertation on how to apply the lessons of Vietnam to Afghanistan. He means, our counterinsurgency successes there. Ian Westerman advocates a look at Robert Komer’s CORDS pacification “programme” (sic. Chiefly Brit.; quaint as a Maxim gun!), Afghan-focussed” (sic again) goals and a more unified command that speaks to the Afgahns with one voice.
Also at Small Wars Journal, Nate Fick and Vikram Singh counsel a bigger carrot and a bigger stick vs. Pakistan:
Only a genuine U.S. offer of long-term cooperation can make fighting al Qaeda more worthwhile to Pakistan than the status quo. The first component of such an offer must be ending blank-check security assistance to Pakistan. The next U.S. president needs Congressional support to send a new message and offer a new bargain to Pakistan’s military and fractious civilian leaders: “Pakistan’s progress as a modern state is at real risk either from Al Qaeda extremists or from any major international terrorist attack getting traced back to Pakistani territory, forcing western military action. We are ready to discuss a ten-year aid package, significant infrastructure investment, and security agreements in exchange for measurable progress along the border, concrete steps to address the grievances of minority populations, and investment in education, health, and basic infrastructure. The alternative is a drawing down of U.S. security assistance and additional unilateral military action inside your territory.”
Pakistan’s The News International with a hinky-looking report citing some Pak prof that India is getting ready to send 150,000 troops to Afghanistan. Not seeing that anywhere else. Sounds a little like Pak panic-mongering and frankly sounds like a bad idea … directly counter to the approach advocated by Vikram and Fick to cool down Indo-Pak relations as part of a program to cool down Afghanistan … though I suppose there are scenarios under which the threat of a substantial deployment of Indian troops to Afghanistan could be part of a measured program to get Pakistan’s head out of its …
Long War Journal offers a quick situational glance around at developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Abu Muqawama with more Pak developments.
My modest prediction. McKiernan in the BaltSun article linked above suggests it will get worse before it gets better, and that may well be true. Typically in the American press and various political circles that’s seen as cause for despair, panic and abandonment. But 2009 is going to be a big year that could see significant changes in Afghanistan. Petraeus is at Centcom, the Afghan government and various Taliban elements are looking for ways out of this, and both candidates see it as a priority. Both have major political stakes in stabilizing, even winning. On the last point, however, if you’ll indulge me a little partisanship, Barack Obama’s geo-political incoherence is a problem. Starting with the fact that he doesn’t think there is any relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq or Iraq and Afghanistan, and wants to negotiate from a position of weakness with Iran, which lies between the two.
Welcome Instapundit, etal. Always good to see you. Don’t be strangers, come on in.
Topics: Afghanistan, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:24 am on Monday, October 6, 2008
4 Responses to “Victory Impossible!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
[...] More Afghanistan related news here at ttp://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/10/06/victory-impossible/ . My question: On who’s behalf is [...]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Jules,
About Indian troops going to Afghanistan…
Here’s what I just read over at Michael Yon ’s blog:
“There are even some Hindus here. Interestingly, down south in Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, up in Kabul, and out here in Nangarhar province, most everyone seems to hate or at least greatly distrust the Pakistanis. Yet when I ask Afghans what they think of Indians, every Afghan I have asked, and that would be many, express affection for Indians. I ask the Afghans, “You don’t care that most Indians are Hindus?” “No, no, we don’t care. We are Muslims and they are Hindus, but we like India. The Indian people are welcome here.” Yet the Muslims in Afghanistan do not like the Muslims in Pakistan, while the Hindus in India, in my experience, equally despise Pakistan. ”
It’s at http://www.michaelyon-online.com, under the “Compounds” entry, with all the photos. Can’t figure out how to do a direct link.
Eric
October 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Incredible comments from the Brigadier Carleton Smith! We will never win this war if NATO partners do not aggressively attack the enemy. The fact of the matter is that the British are NOT taking the fight to the Taliban!!! They have pretty much consolidated their combat power around several bases and refused to venture out due to “enemy activity.” They always want someone else to do the fighting for them. The USMC 24 MEU cleared enemy forces in Gamsir. 2/7 Marines attacked enemey forces in the Upper Sangin Valley in Northern Helmond to set the conditions for police training. Both missions were successful. The Brits were nowhere to be seen. Also NATO exerted incredible pressure to have them execute the Kajacki Dam mission. They dithered and dallied and took years to escort the turbine up to Kajacki. Although a working turbine would have provided enough power to light up Kandahar City and parts of other provinces. Thereby allowing the Afghan people to see the progess of the Afghan Gov’tand their ability to provide services. It also would have displayed that the Taliban are incapable of helping the country. The Brits claim to understand COIN better than anyone else due to their “experience” but in reality they refuse to execute. The Brits are proving to be a less than reliable ally mostly due to their arrogance and failure to dvelop a workable plan.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
What remains of the Brit culture can produce soldiers as stalwart and combat effective as any soldiers ever produced by any culture in human history.
That same culture can produce senior leadership that is feckless, spineless and as incompetent as any ever produced in human history.
Lets us not forget the brilliant successes of our moral and intellectual superiors in this GWoT.
Basra, Iraq. Musa Qala, Afghanistan. About par for the course for the soft headed monkey chasers.