Comments on: Right, Because the Soviets Never Tried That One

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:10:57 +0000

Dennis, the problem with #2 is that its well known, at least thus far, the CIA has a 0 casualty tolerance, meaning CIA operatives dont leave the security of base or military accompaniment.

This of course makes it impossible to develop assets or even get a grounds eye view of the terrain. How are these increased CIA operatives going to help, other than, potentially, continuing to support drone operations? CT sure, COIN? don’t see it…

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:06:47 +0000

Josh, the 1980s weren’t the most recent time that was tried, just the most recent time it was tried by an occupying power. Unless I’m mistaken Najibullahs government and then the joint militia alliances of the 90s also seemed to believe the Taliban were not a major issue and that by continuing to hold places like Herat, Mazar, and Kabul they could maintain control.

Or did I misunderstand Dorronsoro? Still getting myself up to speed on Afghan history and the vagaries of the political machinations therein. Seems to me we have no new plans and are rehashing old ones, whether its the myth that population is in the cities or the idea that somehow a loose association of miliitias can defeat the Taliban and then standup a unified Afghan government…

By: BruceR

BruceR — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:55:55 +0000

Related thoughts here.

By: BruceR

BruceR — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:16:17 +0000

I can sort of see the point. Three platoon houses is more useful than a company FOB. Saying a platoon house in a more populated area is more useful than one in a less populated area doesn’t contradict that, though.

There’s no question troops have been misallocated. Yes, “getting off the FOB” is part of it. But “closing down the platoon house that was put on a remote mountain on a Karzai whim and against all military logic” or “close down the one that is so busy manning its own walls it can’t patrol the village a mile away” is part of it, too.

By: Asquith Malone

Asquith Malone — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:43:39 +0000

glaister@0204,

What are you implying?

That Josh is “omniputant”, stemming from the Latin “puta”?

An astringent puta? Hang onto your cojones and watch your Khyber.

Tally Ho!

By: dennis

dennis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:00:23 +0000

well maybe some of what they are saying.have something do with some the news today, and few days ago.
1.US to shift anti-terror focus to Pakistan, and this gem.
2.CIA expanding ops in Afghanistan, operatives and SOS.ops.
one from msn.
two from danger room.

By: Derrick Crowe

Derrick Crowe — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:42:56 +0000

You’re right that we disagree on the merits of the war, and I think that makes the “I see bad policy and think, let’s leave” unfair. It’s way more complicated than that (i.e. that I’m a “quitter”). For example, I think that regardless of the merits of the war, we actually lost it some time ago, and the insurgent groups have succeeded in initiating political jiu-jitsu, wherein escalation of our military presence becomes a liability. I also think we’re pursuing strategies that sound great and serious on paper but which assume the presence of situations and resources that do not exist and are not likely to exist.

Can you throw some links in to some of your preferred outcomes? I’d be interested to read them.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:19:23 +0000

This might be the fundamental difference between us: I see bad policy and think “let’s change the policy.” You see bad policy and think, “let’s leave.”

Then again, I think we also disagree on the merits of the war itself, which obviously colors things as well.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:18:38 +0000

NEVER!

By: Derrick Crowe

Derrick Crowe — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:16:22 +0000

Yeah okay proofreading fail, but I trust you can decipher.