Petraeus' dubious strategy in Afghanistan

[Florestan]

I believe that if the US stays in Afghanistan for 100 years the Afghan campaign will be no less a complete failure.

Word.

[Scarpia]

I'll reiterate my previous example: Ahmad Shah Massoud passionately fought both the Soviets and the Taliban. It might very well be that the Taliban have superior training and arms "thanks" to the ambiguous Pakistani stance on this issue.

I am not familiar with him.  But I see from Wikipedia that he was assassinated by the Taliban in 2001.   Has he had no successors? 

I also find it hard to believe that our allies are outmatched by their Taliban adversaries because of  material support from Pakistan.   Pakistan is a desperately poor country, surely the US can adequately supply any allies who are willing to fight the Taliban.

[Franco]

I believe that if the US stays in Afghanistan for 100 years the Afghan campaign will be no less a complete failure.  Do we have to luxury of flushing a trillion dollars down the toilet when the US economy is faltering and the US government does not have the money to fund maintain basic infastructure, scientific research, education and the health care needs of its citizens?

I am not advocating the US staying in Afghanistan 100 years, or anything remotely close, but public announcements have consequences, and they can either enhance the military campaign or undermine it.  It is my opinion that the Obama administration undermined the US effort by publically targeting an exit date.

While internally targeting a date would constitute a pragmatic contingency, there was no benefit (other than domestic politics) to make it public.

[Florestan]

I am not familiar with him.  But I see from Wikipedia that he was assassinated by the Taliban in 2001.   Has he had no successors? 

I guess that when a charismatic leader disappears, it is hard to find a replacement matching the original.

I also find it hard to believe that our allies are outmatched by their Taliban adversaries because of  material support from Pakistan.   Pakistan is a desperately poor country, surely the US can adequately supply any allies who are willing to fight the Taliban.

This is one of, nay, the greatest error of US foreign policy: to believe that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Let's take the very Taliban case: who labelled them "freedom fighters" and armed them when they were fighting the Soviets and their puppets? 

[Scarpia]

While internally targeting a date would constitute a pragmatic contingency, there was no benefit (other than domestic politics) to make it public.

In the first place, there is no target date for removal of troops.  There is a target date for the draw-down of troops starting.  How long that processes will linger is still open.  Whether we announce it or no, everyone knows we are leaving.

I find the issue simple.  If the criteria for leaving is any substantial success, we will never leave.  We will leave when we decide to give up and admit failure.  Better to admit failure as soon as possible, before more lives and resources are lost.   (And failure is not defeat.)

[Scarpia]

This is one of, nay, the greatest error of US foreign policy: to believe that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Let's take the very Taliban case: who labelled them "freedom fighters" and armed them when they were fighting the Soviets and their puppets? 

That is my point.  If we have any real allies in Afghanistan we should give them resources.  Failing that, keep the scorpions in a bottle where they can only fight each other.

[Florestan]

failure is not defeat

And if it was, so what? Is US immune to defeat? All throughout history there have been largest and more powerful states (in their historical context, of course) that suffered defeats.

[Todd]

I believe that if the US stays in Afghanistan for 100 years the Afghan campaign will be no less a complete failure.

Don't worry, we won't be there for too terribly much longer.  I think the Biden advocated approach - using drones to occassionally kill people we don't like from afar - will be the norm in a year or two, and no one will care.  Remote control warfare does offer certain benefits.  It's cheaper, takes fewer American lives, and doesn't get very much media coverage.  Whether it wins hearts and minds overseas, or creates new enemies, is a different story.

[Scarpia]

And if it was, so what? Is US immune to defeat? All throughout history there have been largest and more powerful states (in their historical context, of course) that suffered defeats.

I would not equate the survival of the Taliban with defeat.  We have failed in our goal to exterminate the Taliban.  It was never a reasonable goal.

[Florestan]

I would not equate the survival of the Taliban with defeat.  We have failed in our goal to exterminate the Taliban.  It was never a reasonable goal.

Was it really the goal? I believe the goal was to capture Ossama bin Laden and bring him to justice. An epic failure that, indeed. What was the evidence he was hiding in Afghanistan, anyway?

[Scarpia]

Was it really the goal? I believe the goal was to capture Ossama bin Laden and bring him to justice. An epic failure that, indeed. What was the evidence he was hiding in Afghanistan, anyway?

I don't know what the goal is. If bin Laden is alive he is cowering in a cave somewhere and posing no threat to anyone. 

[Herman]

I suppose what is missing from the analysis in the article and others like it, is the fact that after being attacked and having over 3,000 of its citizens killed by terrorists who are based in Afghanistan, the US had little choice but to go after the perpetrators.

That was the beauty of OBL's strategy. The retaliation thing dragged the USA (and the rest of the western world, too, partly) into a trillion dollar hole, without ever having a chance of achieving much beyond hanging Saddam Hussein in a ceremony that humiliated everyone's sense of justice.

OBL has not been caught, not even sighted; the 3000 WTC dead are as dead as they were before, and 5000 US soldiers have been added to it, and tens of thousands of soldiers who will spend the rest of their lives suffering terrible injuries; a million Iraqis have been killed, and the Taliban is stronger than ever. And the US will likely not recover before China will definitely gain the upper hand on the world stage.

Way to go, eh?

[Scarpia]

That was the beauty of OBL's strategy. The retaliation thing dragged the USA (and the rest of the western world, too, partly) into a trillion dollar hole, without ever having a chance of achieving much beyond hanging Saddam Hussein in a ceremony that humiliated everyone's sense of justice.

OBL has not been caught, not even sighted; the 3000 WTC dead are as dead as they were before, and 5000 US soldiers have been added to it, and tens of thousands of soldiers who will spend the rest of their lives suffering terrible injuries; a million Iraqis have been killed, and the Taliban is stronger than ever. And the US will likely not recover before China will definitely gain the upper hand on the world stage.

Way to go, eh?

Can't find much to disagree with there.   

[Todd]

And the US will likely not recover before China will definitely gain the upper hand on the world stage.

Are you referring to recovering from the recession?  How long do you expect that to take, and how long do you expect it will take China to definitely gain "the upper hand," which is what, exactly?  If you are referring to war making capacity, I dare say the US could deploy forces as needed today, except against a great power.  I don't see a war with a great power developing in the next few years.

[bwv 1080]

This is just absurd - the five largest national defense budgets in the world.  We will go broke maintaining an empire that we don't even get to properly exploit

[Todd]

This is just absurd - the five largest national defense budgets in the world.  We will go broke maintaining an empire that we don't even get to properly exploit

Spending is indeed high, but even people who warn of imperial overreach and the percent of GDP devoted to the military (like Paul Kennedy) can't mask the fact that US defense spending as a percent of GDP is less now than most of the post-war period.  Your chart is obviously incomplete; you should also include a time series.  Snapshots are convenient but not wholly accurate.

I do think that spending should be reduced, and US strategic foci realigned, though.  For instance, why do we continue to maintain 70,000+ troops and related facilities in Europe?  The Soviet Union is gone.  It's not coming back.  Time to start drawing down forces in Europe, revisit the purpose and funding for NATO, and refocus on more pressing issues.  Combine that with a reduction in forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and kill off a few spendy but worthless defense programs, and there's the possibility of real savings.

[Franco]

That was the beauty of OBL's strategy. The retaliation thing dragged the USA (and the rest of the western world, too, partly) into a trillion dollar hole, without ever having a chance of achieving much beyond hanging Saddam Hussein in a ceremony that humiliated everyone's sense of justice.

I think your assessment of the chances of success at the outset are overly pessimistic and benefit from hindsight. 

OBL has not been caught, not even sighted; the 3000 WTC dead are as dead as they were before, and 5000 US soldiers have been added to it, and tens of thousands of soldiers who will spend the rest of their lives suffering terrible injuries; a million Iraqis have been killed, and the Taliban is stronger than ever. And the US will likely not recover before China will definitely gain the upper hand on the world stage.

Way to go, eh?

Again, I can imagine that finding OBL was a high priority for the mission, the fact that he has not been caught is certainly a major failing of the effort but not because of a lack of will by the US.   I do think Al Qaeda has been weakened and now functions more as an idea instead of a potent terrorist organization. 

I see Iran as the most serious threat in the Middle East and arguably elsewhere, e.g. South America, where Iran's intelligence is involved in Venezuela and working to build up an network of nations hostile to the US to further Iran's global aspirations.  The strategic benefit of it's nuclear program is not so much for using it against a country like Israel but for the deterrence, i.e. keeping the US at bay and once Iran has nuclear weaponry it will be more emboldened to act with impunity. 

I am more disappointed in how the Obama administration has mishandled the Iran problem and this will cause a much greater security issue than either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, although perceived or actual failure in either place will only redound to Iran's benefit.

[bwv 1080]

Spending is indeed high, but even people who warn of imperial overreach and the percent of GDP devoted to the military (like Paul Kennedy) can't mask the fact that US defense spending as a percent of GDP is less now than most of the post-war period.  Your chart is obviously incomplete; you should also include a time series.  Snapshots are convenient but not wholly accurate.

I do think that spending should be reduced, and US strategic foci realigned, though.  For instance, why do we continue to maintain 70,000+ troops and related facilities in Europe?  The Soviet Union is gone.  It's not coming back.  Time to start drawing down forces in Europe, revisit the purpose and funding for NATO, and refocus on more pressing issues.  Combine that with a reduction in forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and kill off a few spendy but worthless defense programs, and there's the possibility of real savings.

Because our national defense strategy is run by the precepts of Public Choice, not the actual national security interests of the country

[Todd]

Because our national defense strategy is run by the precepts of Public Choice, not the actual national security interests of the country

Alas, this is too true.  Hey, wait a minute, wasn't Obama going to bring real change to Washington?

[bwv 1080]

Alas, this is too true.  Hey, wait a minute, wasn't Obama going to bring real change to Washington?

Yeah, its funny how he turned into a flaming neocon the minute he swore the oath.