Progress in Afghanistan: What's Next After 6 Years of War?

[mheslep]

August was the worst month so far in Afghanistan for coalition fatalities - 77 (72 from hostile action), total coalition fatalities now since the 2001 invasion: 1409.
http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

Also I had thought most of the fighting was occurring along the eastern border provinces, or in Kandahar, when by far the largest share of fatalities is the in southern province of http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/afghanistan_rel_2003.jpg" fatalities. Edit: Since the US launched a major offensive in Helmand in July to take back some areas/towns from the Taliban before the August election, its likely many of these Helmand fatalities were recent and from the US Marines, who staged the Helmand offensive.

That was 301 coalition fatalities in Helmand, with only 89 US fatalities, since 2001.
The United Kingdom has had 190 fatalities in Helmand province, about 93% of their total losses in Afghanistan. I have a friend in the UK army in Afghanistan at this moment; odds are that's where he is stationed.

I see the Canadians are similarly concentrated next door in Kandahar province, with ~90% of their losses there.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.cnas.org/node/3448

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

McCrystal wants more troops. Others want to keep the level as is.

From Slate - Administration Officials: Taliban Could Become Like Hezbollah. And That's OK.

It should hardly come as a shock to anyone who has been following the debate on Afghanistan strategy, but after six hours of debate among senior national security advisers, the administration seems well on its way to what the Los Angeles Times calls a "subtle shift" in strategy. Al-Qaida has, of course, been considered an enemy all along. But whereas the Taliban used to be seen as a close ally that supported the enemy's ambitions, now the White House is taking great effort to make sure the public understands they're not one and the same. The Taliban are seen more as a local group that could eventually become like Hezbollah — a terrorist organization that is a political force and causes instability in the region but is not a threat to the United States. The new strategy would weaken the Taliban, leaving them unable to take over the government or give safe haven to al-Qaida, without destroying them. As the Wall Street Journal points out, changing the focus of the war could give the White House the justification it needs to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan either by a small number or not at all—no one is advocating a troop decrease—while still ostensibly following Gen. Stanely McChrystal's advice. It was revealed yesterday that McChrystal's request to Obama for additional troops included an option of adding more than 60,000 troops. This is news because, so far, 40,000 was always talked about as the highest figure. Now it seems 40,000 additional troops is the middle of three options, and is seen as the primary choice of senior military officers. Obama will discuss the specific numbers with his advisers for the first time today. The LAT says Obama is "at least a week away" from making any kind of decision.

The problem is that under the Taliban, the people - those without weapons or protection - suffered under the Taliban or Warlords.

The Taliban and al Qaida have formed an amorphous alliance, and both drift across the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. The Taliban were primarily Pashtun Afghanis displaced during the Russian incursion into Afghanistan. Now they are a larger group that includes many subgroups, some of which might have aspirations or jihad against perceived enemies - primarily the US.

And if that is not a concern then think about this
The IED: Weapon of Choice - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/09/26/VI2007092601410.html

How long before IED's are used in US metropolitan areas?

 

[mheslep]

...And if that is not a concern then think about this
The IED: Weapon of Choice - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/09/26/VI2007092601410.html

How long before IED's are used in US metropolitan areas?

This last bit is not coherent. Look at why IED's are used in Afghanistan, and what's required to make them.

 

[Astronuc]

This last bit is not coherent. Look at why IED's are used in Afghanistan, and what's required to make them.

It's based on a comment made by one of the people in the video. Materials to make IEDs are readily available in the US or can be brought in via any of the illicit smuggling/trafficking operations.

 

[mheslep]

It's based on a comment made by one of the people in the video.

Yes by the WaPo reporter, who just says 'many people' say we'll see them here. That's a silly comment imo

Materials to make IEDs are readily available in the US or can be brought in via any of the illicit smuggling/trafficking operations.

No the 'materials' are not readily available here, the important material being the explosives, not the triggering device. The number one source for IED explosives in Iraq is artillery ordinance, which is widely available there. In the US (and I expect elsewhere), explosives are extremely tightly controlled since 911 including the base materials. Yes, explosives can still be had with difficulty, but if the primary goal was simply to cause maximum random mayhem via explosives then then most effective route is to plant them in or alongside a building or other confined space, as history as unfortunately shown. No doubt it will happen again in the US sooner or later. However, for purposes of random violence it is incoherent to put such a device on the side of the road where most of its energy is dissipated as 'IEDs' are, unless the primary goal is to attack patrolling military forces because that is the only place they are accessible, and used that way they unfortunately have tactical value.

 

[mheslep]

Frontline's piece on Afghanistan, Obama's War, is up online now.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1295117818
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

 

[Astronuc]

Yes by the WaPo reporter, who just says 'many people' say we'll see them here. That's a silly comment imo

No the 'materials' are not readily available here, the important material being the explosives, not the triggering device. The number one source for IED explosives in Iraq is artillery ordinance, which is widely available there. In the US (and I expect elsewhere), explosives are extremely tightly controlled since 911 including the base materials.

One can easily purchase materials on the 'global black market' in Central Asia, Africa, S. America, . . . . and given the illicit substances that are readily available on the streets of most metropolitan and suburban areas in the US - it's not as hard as one would imagine. Actually, explosive materials have been under stricture control since 1995 and Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma April 19, 1995, which is interesting given the bombing at the WTC on February 26, 1993.

I would also recommend reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars.

The big concern since about 1985 has been that militant groups would strike back at the US. The term is called 'blowback'. Unfortunately, successive administrations pretty much ignored those concerns - until September 11, 2001.

 

[mheslep]

One can easily purchase materials on the 'global black market' in Central Asia, Africa, S. America, . . . . and given the illicit substances that are readily available on the streets of most metropolitan and suburban areas in the US - it's not as hard as one would imagine.

What do you mean? That US residents can easily buy explosives on the black market overseas and get them into the US? What do you base this on? Transportation hubs now commonly have electronic explosives detectors, not electronic narcotics detectors.

Actually, explosive materials have been under stricture control since 1995 and Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma April 19, 1995, which is interesting given the bombing at the WTC on February 26, 1993.

Since the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804496/posts" Yousef's fertilizer truck bomb is going to be quite a bit harder to repeat. Even so, I doubt fertilizer is very suitable for man powerful portable explosives. An individual would do much more damage w/ a firearm I expect.

I would also recommend reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars.

Why? Does Coll suggest as you do that there is a waive of explosives coming into that IED's could be common in 'US metropolitan areas' as you have?

 

[mgb_phys]

What do you mean? That US residents can easily buy explosives on the black market overseas and get them into the US?

The IRA never seemed to have much trouble moving them in the other direction - and security in Northern Ireland went a lot further than taking nail clippers off you at the airport.

Transportation hubs now commonly have electronic explosives detectors,

They swab a few peoples hands, they don't strip down every container and open every package. 20,000 containers arrive in the US everyday - shouldn't be impossible to get a few kg of C4 in that.

Since the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804496/posts" Yousef's fertilizer truck bomb is going to be quite a bit harder to repeat.

But not impossible there is still a lot of Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil sold in the US

Even so, I doubt fertilizer is very suitable for man powerful portable explosives. An individual would do much more damage w/ a firearm I expect.

Not much use in a IED, but a truck full makes a mess. It's also very easy to detonate.
Best source for an IED is military explosives/munitions. You would need a country with many 1000s of military bases in remote areas with many miles of poorly guarded fences and forgotten about stores.

 

[mheslep]

The IRA never seemed to have much trouble moving them in the other direction - and security in Northern Ireland went a lot further than taking nail clippers off you at the airport...

We're not talking about Northern Ireland or anywhere else with a full blown insurrection / civil war under-way. If we did IED's would not be on the top of my worry list.

Again: The topic was not what might happen one or twice, or how once or twice someone would go to great lengths and risk to obtain a one time 1-2kg of C4 (which is a silly risk, when opening a gas line is much simpler and as effective). The US already had once or twice, and they'll be more. The suggestion was that IEDs, that is, common and easy to obtain explosive devices, would widely appear in the US, circa 2009, despite an ATF, an FBI, new explosives restrictions, and new explosives electronics detectors at border entries.

 

[mheslep]

... Best source for an IED is military explosives/munitions. You would need a country with many 1000s of military bases in remote areas with many miles of poorly guarded fences and forgotten about stores.

Exactly, as stated before
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2389580&postcount=111

 

[Astronuc]

One [More] Death in Afghanistan: Ben Sklaver's Story
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1930683,00.html

Last week, Laura and Gary Sklaver buried their oldest boy, Ben, who was 32 when killed by a suicide bomber in the remote village of Murcheh in the distant land of Afghanistan. Ben was a captain in the U.S. Army. Now he has become one of 804 Americans, 37 from Connecticut, to lose their lives in an expanding war that belongs mostly to the parents and families of those who serve a nation preoccupied by a wounded economy and political polarization.
. . . .
Ben Sklaver grew up drawn to service. He admired his grandfather, who served with George Patton's Army in World War II. He joined ROTC at Tufts, received a master's in international relations from the Fletcher School of Diplomacy, was commissioned as an officer in the Army Reserve in 2003 and became convinced that a world consumed with conflict and terrorism might be changed by Americans bringing clean water, medicine and food as much as by drones, missiles and military might.
. . . .

In memory of Cpt Benjamin Sklaver - http://www.clearwaterinitiative.org/benjamin/

Projects - http://www.clearwaterinitiative.org/Projects/projects.htm

 

[mheslep]

One [More] Death in Afghanistan: Ben Sklaver's Story
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1930683,00.html

Thanks for the Sklaver story Astronuc. That village appears to be in mostly trouble free province of Bamyan, so this is unexpected there.

I do object to Time's rendering of the story. The closing:

...two more casualties of a war waged by the forgotten few.

They are not forgotten by me.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for the Sklaver story Astronuc. That village appears to be in mostly trouble free province of Bamyan, so this is unexpected there.

I do object to Time's rendering of the story. The closing:

They are not forgotten by me.

Bamiyan or Bamyan is home of the Hazaras, who may be more amenable to the US presence. Unfortunately, Taliban or Taliban/al Qaida sympathizers seem to move throughout the country.

I wish US and ISAF troops weren't in that situation, but the alternative of just up an leaving would allow for worse situation.

Some of the Taliban may be very focused locally or provincially, but the Taliban have evolved under the influence of foreign entities like al-Qaida, Jamaat-E-Islami, Hezb-e Islami, and similar organizations. The situation has become more dire in Pakistan, and both Pakistan and Afghanistan face the same insurgency more or less.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091016/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanunrest

Pakistan Attacks Show Tighter Militant Links
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/world/asia/16pstan.html


The situation is a bit like fighting a wildfire with unpredictable winds.

 

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8357011.stm

A 14-year-old boy in the tribal region of Bajaur, in north-west Pakistan, says he was detained by Taliban forces who tried to turn him into a suicide bomber. The boy is now in army hands.

He provided a detailed account to BBC correspondent Orla Guerin. His story cannot be independently verified.

 

[mheslep]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8357011.stm

That's some story. His kidnappers seemed to have skipped the injunction in the Quran
against suicide. The Taliban (and Al Qaeda) appears to be little more than a group of megalomaniacs, a cult, using Islam as cover - something worth fighting.

 

[mgb_phys]

opium production went up, that wasn't much but it's the progress that was made by Bush and Co..

So you have:
A trade deficit with China
You want stuff China exports
You don't make anything they want
You have a weak currency and they want paying in silver
Meanwhile you have a possession in the Indian sub-continent that grows opium.

A historical solution does seem to present itself.

 

[mheslep]

I plotted the US/UK fatalities by month and year below. Let's hope November brings quiet to Afghanistan as it has in past years.
http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

US:

UK:

 

[Astronuc]

Something that apparently works in Afghanistan.

National Solidarity Programme

The National Solidarity Programme (NSP) was created in 2003 by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development to develop the ability of Afghan communities to identify, plan, manage and monitor their own development projects. Through the promotion of good local governance, the NSP works to empower rural communities to make decision affecting their own lives and livelihoods. Empowered rural communities collectively contribute to increased human security. The programme is inclusive, supporting entire communities including the poorest and vulnerable people.

http://www.nspafghanistan.org/

 

[Sorry!]

I'm wondering how exactly everyone feels about the current situation in Afghanistan. Actually I'd love to be brought 'more up-to-date' on what's actually going on if anyone has a recent article they could share with me.

I have no idea if these points have been brought up sorry if it has I just skimmed through it.
The way I see it is that it's great that countries are going in and supporting rebuilding the country and supporting the people. However this is an environment that is going to be used against the troops in a war. For instance I recal watching on CNN a story about a base that was near the pakistan border and was ambushed HEAVILY only 2 soldiers survived from the entire base and they were pinned down for quite some time before reinforcements could come and land.

I assume that America's target is mostly to get rid of the terrorist and continue their war on terror however we should look at this area's history. They have been constantly at war and they do really well on home turf I have no doubt in my mind that America given enough strength in Afghanistan could destroy every sign of terrorist in the region and guard it. Will it be worth it to get to that point though?

Maybe we should instead focus more on building the urban areas and helping the people of the country instead of attempting to eliminate the terrorist along the borders? If you look on youtube for videos of battles between Americans on the borderland you will probably be quite shocked by how well the enemy is able to fight. They even do recon missions with the Americans having any idea until they find videotapes.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe we should ease off the border (it's an extremely difficult area to defend) and focus more on the internal system of Afghanistan. Maybe that will be more rewarding? (I.e. Winning over the people of the country so they no longer support or help the terrorist?)

I've enlisted in the military, Canadian, I have to go through all my testings etc. in a little bit and I would love to go over there to know we are helping and making a difference to the Afghan people lives now.

This could all be wrong however as my views are mostly based on reports from just before the summertime, so it's obviously probable that things have changed since then.

 

[kyleb]

I think we'd need to send about ten times the troops Obama is sending to make a real difference. Granted, it seems politically impossible to do that, and hence I'd prefer we just get out now, as I don't expect the current course of action to accomplish anything notable.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm wondering how exactly everyone feels about the current situation in Afghanistan. Actually I'd love to be brought 'more up-to-date' on what's actually going on if anyone has a recent article they could share with me.

I have no idea if these points have been brought up sorry if it has I just skimmed through it.
The way I see it is that it's great that countries are going in and supporting rebuilding the country and supporting the people. However this is an environment that is going to be used against the troops in a war. For instance I recal watching on CNN a story about a base that was near the pakistan border and was ambushed HEAVILY only 2 soldiers survived from the entire base and they were pinned down for quite some time before reinforcements could come and land.

I assume that America's target is mostly to get rid of the terrorist and continue their war on terror however we should look at this area's history. They have been constantly at war and they do really well on home turf I have no doubt in my mind that America given enough strength in Afghanistan could destroy every sign of terrorist in the region and guard it. Will it be worth it to get to that point though?

Maybe we should instead focus more on building the urban areas and helping the people of the country instead of attempting to eliminate the terrorist along the borders? If you look on youtube for videos of battles between Americans on the borderland you will probably be quite shocked by how well the enemy is able to fight. They even do recon missions with the Americans having any idea until they find videotapes.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe we should ease off the border (it's an extremely difficult area to defend) and focus more on the internal system of Afghanistan. Maybe that will be more rewarding? (I.e. Winning over the people of the country so they no longer support or help the terrorist?)

I've enlisted in the military, Canadian, I have to go through all my testings etc. in a little bit and I would love to go over there to know we are helping and making a difference to the Afghan people lives now.

This could all be wrong however as my views are mostly based on reports from just before the summertime, so it's obviously probable that things have changed since then.

One thing I think is a bit silly is the notion that we are going to "break the will" of the enemy. We are not. They will fight to the last man. The only way to get rid of them is to kill all of them and make sure there are no new recruits.

 

[Sorry!]

One thing I think is a bit silly is the notion that we are going to "break the will" of the enemy. We are not. They will fight to the last man. The only way to get rid of them is to kill all of them and make sure there are no new recruits.

The common people of Afghanistan are not our enemy. Why should we focus our energy on getting rid of our enemies in the area when:
A)It will require a lot more man-power than currently available.
B)It will require a lot more force than it looks like any country involved is ready to bring to the war.
C)We probably will never succeed in the mission of destroying the enemy even if we try
and
D)We will never win over the regular society of Afghanistan by constantly fighting wars and bringing the violence home to them. SURE there was already violence there but the Taliban, for instance, will go into towns and steal, threaten, beat up people to make sure they do not relay information to the troops... sometimes they even just chill in towns waiting to ambush troops and then just run away normally destroying the village, civillian deaths get involved.

 

[mheslep]

I'm wondering how exactly everyone feels about the current situation in Afghanistan. Actually I'd love to be brought 'more up-to-date' on what's actually going on if anyone has a recent article they could share with me...

See up thread #105, those sources will fill you in quite well.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374114&postcount=105

I assume that America's target is mostly to get rid of the terrorist and continue their war on terror however we should look at this area's history.

That's the Counter Terrorism strategy, and was rejected by McCrystal for Afghanistan, who did Counter Terror quite well in Iraq. The plan now is Counter Insurgency, a very different concept, which the President has now endorsed (at least for a couple years).

 

[mheslep]

With regards to the number of troops, and the usual 1:50 COIN rule of thumb:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120274965

It's true that the Army/Marine COIN Manual suggests a figure of 1 counterinsurgent per 50 civilians as a rough rule of thumb. It's also true that Afghanistan has roughly 30 million people, so that if you apply that ratio you get a requirement for 600,000 security personnel. That's far more than are currently deployed: There are about 100,000 foreign troops (68,000 of them American) and 180,000 Afghan security personnel.

Getting to 600,000 is daunting but not impossible; Iraq has done it. However the real size of the immediate requirement is smaller because the insurgency is concentrated among the Pashtuns who form half the population, or roughly 15 million people. If you apply the ratio to Pashtuns only, you get a requirement of 300,000 security personnel. That's more in the ballpark of what American and Afghan resources can provide in the near future.

 

[Sorry!]

See up thread #105, those sources will fill you in quite well.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374114&postcount=105

That's the Counter Terrorism strategy, and was rejected by McCrystal for Afghanistan, who did Counter Terror quite well in Iraq. The plan now is Counter Insurgency, a very different concept, which the President has now endorsed (at least for a couple years).

Thanks.

This counter-insurgency seems much closer to what I would expect to occur in an area such as Afghanistan. I wasn't aware that's currently what they are doing.

 

[mheslep]

I was particularly interested in this part of the US President's speech this week:

...[Afghanistan and Pakistan are] the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

That is indeed no idle security threat, a serious reminder of why NATO forces are engaged there. I had heard nothing about new extremists entering the country. Anyone have details on the event(s) he is referring to there?

 

[Sorry!]

I was particularly interested in this part of the US President's speech this week:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

That is indeed no idle security threat, a serious reminder of why NATO forces are engaged there. I had heard nothing about new extremists entering the country. Anyone have details on the event(s) he is referring to there?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32916251/
That's the only event I can think about that's been made public at least. However this person is an American citizen who was on a trip IIRC.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32916251/
That's the only event I can think about that's been made public at least. However this person is an American citizen who was on a trip IIRC.

Thanks, I've googled around too

This

Zazi, 24, was born in Afghanistan in 1985, moved to Pakistan at age 7 and emigrated to the United States in 1999

doesn't match up with threats described by Obama.

 

[rootX]

Three cups of tea
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/about-the-book/

I am not sure if someone has mentioned this book already.

 

[mheslep]

Three cups of tea
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/about-the-book/

I am not sure if someone has mentioned this book already.

Have you read it Rootx? I'd appreciate any comments.

 

[rootX]

Have you read it Rootx? I'd appreciate any comments.

I just heard about it today on the radio.

 

[mheslep]

Monday Afghan President Karzai hosted Iran's Ahmadinejad in his palace, where he gave his predictably lame stream of attacks on the US. This was done apparently in response to a US snubbing after Karzai torpedoed the election investigation. Karzai now supposedly displays classic fearless leader syndrome:

He believes that America is trying to dominate the region, and that he is the only one who can stand up to them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30karzai.html?ref=asia

Usually my opinion would be tough luck for the US and allies, as the Afghan people are the only ones who have the right to choose their leadership. But this time the Afghans didn't choose Karzai; this former Maitre D in a Baltimore restaurant stole the election. Obama / McCrystal should throw the bastard on (or under) the next passing train, and hold a real election.

 

[Astronuc]

Three cups of tea
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/about-the-book/

I am not sure if someone has mentioned this book already.

Great book!

There's also the new book - Stones to Schools.
http://www.stonesintoschools.com/

http://www.ikat.org/
We support it.

 

[Max Faust]

Wouldn't it be best to get the *bleep* out of Afghanistan, the sooner the better?
All these years and all that waste of money and life - and achieving funk-all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING!