Comments on: Looking At What’s Best http://registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/ All Central Asia, All The Time Fri, 25 May 2012 03:15:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Péter http://registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/comment-page-1/#comment-374941 Péter Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:27:05 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/#comment-374941 Thanks for the comment, and I also had some further remarks. I see some consensual points emerging! :-) http://statefailure.blogspot.com/2007/06/those-major-afghan-nses.html Best, Péter Thanks for the comment, and I also had some further remarks. I see some consensual points emerging! :-)
http://statefailure.blogspot.com/2007/06/those-major-afghan-nses.html
Best,
Péter

]]> By: Joshua Foust http://registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/comment-page-1/#comment-374940 Joshua Foust Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:42:44 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/#comment-374940 Péter, you're right that for the most part we're stuck in a nasty catch-22 as far as viable solutions go. But I'm with Aaron that arial spraying is deeply counterproductive—regardless of its actual efficacy in destroying poppy crops, and its supposed non-toxicity, it has the effect of turning big swaths of the population against the coalition, especially because in its current form it is not accompanied by viable alternative livelihood programs. This means farmers, even if it were only limited to the big producers, are left without income, and blaming NATO and ISAF for it. I'll respond to your post at your site. Thanks for responding! Péter, you’re right that for the most part we’re stuck in a nasty catch-22 as far as viable solutions go. But I’m with Aaron that arial spraying is deeply counterproductive—regardless of its actual efficacy in destroying poppy crops, and its supposed non-toxicity, it has the effect of turning big swaths of the population against the coalition, especially because in its current form it is not accompanied by viable alternative livelihood programs. This means farmers, even if it were only limited to the big producers, are left without income, and blaming NATO and ISAF for it. I’ll respond to your post at your site.

Thanks for responding!

]]> By: Péter http://registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/comment-page-1/#comment-374939 Péter Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:54:03 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/#comment-374939 First, to Joshua, hi there. I posted some remarks on yours yesterday, the link is here: http://statefailure.blogspot.com/2007/06/registan-from-majaristan.html. To Aaron. First about the aerial spraying issue. Your judgement that it's 'madness' is rather vague, so watch carefully because Joshua might not be in total agreement with you. That's depending on why you think it's madness, and also on what you think madness to be. I'd just remark, that while aerial-spraying a poppy field spanning several hectares seems madness to you, apparently you have no problem with current Afghan eradication on the ground taking out the small pieces of land some villagers have. The airpower issue. Well, I have written of that myself, too. Just read CENTAF airpower summaries, and you'll find a large number of cases when using air strikes seems to be just too safe a way of conducting operations, to put it euphemistically. But that's not even the point. The thing is that before you go into a conflict like the one in Afghanistan, you know that the public back home is ready to accept only a limited amount of casualties; the would-be insurgents know that, too; so you may end up fighting in such a way that you have to physically destroy the state and its people despite all your good intentions. I deliberately exaggerated here. ISAF and OEF forces are trying not to let that happen, but with the constraints they face they can't do a lot better. One method used sometimes is that aircraft fly close by a target to scare insurgents out. Sometimes that succeeds. And despite its being more risky, buildings are sometimes cleared using the one-grenade-for-a-room method, which will not lead to less civilian and soldier casualties necessarily, but will at least leave less homes uninhabitable. So, summing up, the point is not asking what could we do instead, but what follows from that we can't do much else? To not leave this unanswered: the least is that we're fighting to find a very delicate balance to get to success. Regards, Péter First, to Joshua, hi there. I posted some remarks on yours yesterday, the link is here: http://statefailure.blogspot.com/2007/06/registan-from-majaristan.html.
To Aaron. First about the aerial spraying issue. Your judgement that it’s ‘madness’ is rather vague, so watch carefully because Joshua might not be in total agreement with you. That’s depending on why you think it’s madness, and also on what you think madness to be. I’d just remark, that while aerial-spraying a poppy field spanning several hectares seems madness to you, apparently you have no problem with current Afghan eradication on the ground taking out the small pieces of land some villagers have.
The airpower issue. Well, I have written of that myself, too. Just read CENTAF airpower summaries, and you’ll find a large number of cases when using air strikes seems to be just too safe a way of conducting operations, to put it euphemistically.
But that’s not even the point. The thing is that before you go into a conflict like the one in Afghanistan, you know that the public back home is ready to accept only a limited amount of casualties; the would-be insurgents know that, too; so you may end up fighting in such a way that you have to physically destroy the state and its people despite all your good intentions. I deliberately exaggerated here. ISAF and OEF forces are trying not to let that happen, but with the constraints they face they can’t do a lot better.
One method used sometimes is that aircraft fly close by a target to scare insurgents out. Sometimes that succeeds. And despite its being more risky, buildings are sometimes cleared using the one-grenade-for-a-room method, which will not lead to less civilian and soldier casualties necessarily, but will at least leave less homes uninhabitable.
So, summing up, the point is not asking what could we do instead, but what follows from that we can’t do much else? To not leave this unanswered: the least is that we’re fighting to find a very delicate balance to get to success.
Regards,
Péter

]]> By: Aaron http://registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/comment-page-1/#comment-374930 Aaron Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:03:19 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/06/12/looking-at-whats-best/#comment-374930 No offense, but health conditions in many poor countries not even at war are similar. No matter how much aid you pump in, there is a only a certain amount that can be absorbed, especially when the overall infrastructure is lacking. Relying on artillery instead of airpower would result in the same situations - or even worse - see Ethiopian troops or Lebanese forces shelling areas to fight insurgents. Nevertheless, using indirect weapons is how wars are fought. (Note the Taliban use them, too, weird huh?) BTW, a mud hut can stop bullets, thus the need to blow it up if you are being attacked from people within it. The other option is to have more and more US dead on the front pages as we get pinned down and killed attempting to storm positions without using airpower/artillery/etc. How is that going to help, when the pressure comes to withdraw troops? Yes, we'd love to eliminate friendly fire and the killing of civilains in war, but its not as easy as it sounds. Spraying the poppy fields is madness - I'll agree there. No offense, but health conditions in many poor countries not even at war are similar. No matter how much aid you pump in, there is a only a certain amount that can be absorbed, especially when the overall infrastructure is lacking.

Relying on artillery instead of airpower would result in the same situations – or even worse – see Ethiopian troops or Lebanese forces shelling areas to fight insurgents. Nevertheless, using indirect weapons is how wars are fought. (Note the Taliban use them, too, weird huh?) BTW, a mud hut can stop bullets, thus the need to blow it up if you are being attacked from people within it.

The other option is to have more and more US dead on the front pages as we get pinned down and killed attempting to storm positions without using airpower/artillery/etc. How is that going to help, when the pressure comes to withdraw troops? Yes, we’d love to eliminate friendly fire and the killing of civilains in war, but its not as easy as it sounds.

Spraying the poppy fields is madness – I’ll agree there.

]]>