Three minor problems with Haddick's statement:
The US public is not nearly as adverse to casualties as many think. The public will accept casualties without a qualm (except for the chattering classes, who have qualms about everything...) provided results are being obtained -- fail to get results in your war, the public will eventually get angry at non-performance, not at casualties. The US Congress, OTOH, is a different thing. Congress always wants to appear as doing something about any problem, no matter minor or major, their reaction is the same -- panic! then pass another law, quickly! Idiots.
The larger issue is not US aversion to casualties, it is NATO aversion to them and therefor the potential for early departure from the theater and fragmentation of the coalition. That will create an added burden on the US to compensate as a result. Congress (not so much the public) will not be pleased.
The various fighting factions in Afghansitan, including but not limited to the Taliban are well aware of all that and while they will inflict a number of casualties on the US due to the sheer size of the troop commitments, they will concentrate on inflicting casualties on all the other Nation's forces in country. They are in particular targeting Canada and have said so, I suspect that their next in line targets are the UK and Germany as they are the two largest force elements aside from the US. They'll keep tweaking Canada just to insure the Canadians adhere to their stated 2011 withdrawal plan. I anticipate increased attacks on the Italians and Spanish as well.
All that said, Haddick is correct in that they are aiming for casualties versus western impatience as as a strategy. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It could easily have been predicted in 2001 -- or 1966 or 1952... :mad:
Heh. Much our two governments
do is simply incredible... :D
No intent to quibble with you or Haddick on the statement, just adding to it, really. Sometimes my add ons are clumsy. :o
All true and I agree. But...
I'll avoid repeating my earlier comment on incredble actions. :wry:
I'm not sure how a narrative that reads:
"We sort of blundered into this without thinking it through, ignored the advice of those who were current and familiar with the area and essentially said we'd fix something that might not be fixable in the time we're willing or able to allot but we are now committed and are trying to get it organized. If the NATO Steering Committees will just cooperate, we can pro ..."
Will be received by a public that I agree is keen to support and that fails to understand what we have done thus far or now are doing. It's a public which has a surprisingly good appreciation for what we can actually do and who sense most of what both our governments say is not quite, umm, er, accurate. In view of all that, both nations peoples have been pretty patient...
Political spin to tarnish home opponents by all concerned, both sides of the aisles, is not only unhelpful, it is a distinct disservice to those they have sent to fight in this war. :mad:
You're absolutely correct that the effort must produce:
Quote:
"...a campaign vision that integrates the military and non-military strategic lines of development."
The good news is that It seems we are finally doing that. Bad news is that sooner or later, the public is gong to ask why it took eight years to get started doing that.
That will only take another three or four years to implement although we don't know what will then happen. The Japanese, more forward looking and more patient than we scruffy barbarians, are planning on aid and support in Afghanistan for 20 more years. No easy answers...
Fortunately, as you say, the Troops, Bless 'em all, will keep plugging. :cool:
Slightly off topic, but...
Quote:
RUNNING OUT OF TIME: ARGUMENTS FOR A NEW STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN
By GILLES DORRONSORO Professor of Political Science at the Institut d'études politiques in Rennes, France, and Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.
In this working paper, co-produced by CIPS and the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Professor Dorronsoro argues that even with the addition of more US troops this year, there has been a startling lack of strategic innovation in the Afghanistan mission. There is very limited time to change the dynamics of the conflict. NATO should focus on redeploying its forces to the cities and to more stable areas of the country where it has a chance of making a difference, as a step towards eventual NATO withdrawal.
Full Text of this Working Paper
.............
A not embedded reporter reports
THis is a very odd story in The Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/A...the.5464013.jp
Whatever the truth it is an illustration of how the locals may view our presence.
davidbfpo
Britain at home and the war in Afghanistan?
I was reading a weekly column on Foreign Policy Magazine in joint collaboration with Small Wars Journal. About the war in Afghanistan and it's effects on polls on the UK homefront and British politics. From it as I'm sure many of you have read is that discontent over how the British Government and it's handling of it's part of the conflict in Afghanistan is growing stronger then ever before as the article stated. As casualties mount I'm strongly curious as to if the British commitment in Afghanistan will remain open ended? Or will the government under the very unpopular Gordon Brown and Labour Party opt to establish a timeline for a withdrawal date like Canada has kind of done or other countries have actually done? This should be especially interesting given that Britain is going to be having Parliamentary elections next year and how all three major parties will approach this increasingly loud debate.
Any opinions?
For one I could see Labour try to attach a date some considerable time from now to wind down the British commitment in Afghanistan. I also find it hard to see how the Conservatives will deal with this issue.
Initial comments from the UK
Kevin23,
I posted some earlier comments on SWJ Blog:
The current public and political debate over the UK's role in Afghanistan reflects the longstanding opposition to the policy, not the soldiers. Yes, the losses have been the catalyst. So has the USMC operation just to the south of the UK campaigning - with apparently fewer casualties.
The UK role in Helmand has appalling explained by the government before now. What are we doing, is it worth it and what national interests are involved.
A few weeks ago the Whitehall-Westminster coalition were all gloomy about the potential impact on the cherished 'special relationship' and sometimes that is still mentioned in press articles. That is not the argument the public will accept now; for a variety of local reasons the 'relationship' is no longer highly regarded and is under strain.
Even this morning on BBC Radio 4 two politicians were asked why. One of them, Patrick Mercer, Tory ex-soldier, mentioned the importance of Pakistan to UK national security and the impact of a retreat from Helmand. Explaining the role of Pakistan in UK national security is not made loud enough here.
The press and politicians have focussed on the lack of helicopters, that is one of many equipment issues. Yes, it is a scandal that so few are in theatre for so many who need them.
davidbfpo