Stand back from doing "something" about sanctuaries?
In the 'How to build a state in a non state environment' thread, Slap challenged Bill Moore:
Quote:
Bill Moore, if you were General in charge of fixin A'stan and could do anything you wanted.... what would do?
Bill responded and I want to isolate one point:
Quote:
5. Push to establish an emergency zone of control in parts of Pakistan where the Taliban and other insurgents and terrorists seek shelter. Strategic comms are we're in Afghanistan to win, if you can't address these issues we will. I can hear the uproar now, but my narrative is these folks are killing coalition troops and Afghan civilians with immunity (with the exception of an occassional UAV strike). We're incompetent if we continue to allow that to happen, our patience doesn't extend into infinity. By the way our coalition in effort in Pakistan would be subordinate to me in a perfect world. Right now they're getting away with being PAKMIL lap dogs, while we do plane side ceremonies nightly.
SWC have discussed the concept and practicalities of sanctuary before IIRC. A cross-border incursion and / or a series of ground raids are seen as very different to drone strikes (later covered in:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7385 ). Plus several threads on "working" with the Pakistanis.
Doing "something" about the sanctuaries has become an issue again and Anatol Lieven has written in the NYT:
Quote:
if American generals genuinely want to increase such raids, then it needs to be stated emphatically that this is not just a lunatic idea, but one that demonstrates how far senior American (and British) commanders have become obsessed with the war in Afghanistan at the expense of the struggle against terrorism as a whole.
Short summary:http://watandost.blogspot.com/2010/1...-pakistan.html and the original article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/op...dlieven30.html
I did wonder if SWC would benefit from a thread with Slap's question posed differently: If you were the politician giving orders on fixin A'stan, what limits / conditions would you set?
I'm still pondering my own answer - from an armchair.
We've been doing it a lot longer than that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
It's no wonder that certain people value nukes highly nowadays - the U.S. offers a reason for their procurement every day, eight years in a row.
Likely will keep on doing so. The problem is that we used to do it at least a little better than we do nowadays... :rolleyes:
To address your earlier question and statement:
Quote:
Isn't this comical?
Yes -- or ironic. Or both. :D
Quote:
Violating some other countries' sovereignty was exactly what was done when AQ took sanctuary in AFG back in '01 - for the EXACT SAME REASON.
Sort of; close enough anyway. ;)
The sooner we realize that we cannot reform other nations and stop trying to do so, the better off we'll be. The answer to sanctuaries is quite simple -- tell the world that we will not tolerate them. If they then appear (and they will...) then we go in, lay waste, foment hate and discontent and depart as rapidly as we cam -- with an announcement that if it's tried again, we'll be back.
Strategic raids. Leave the low level FID to SF and State / USAid.
First, though, we've got to park the COIN / FID - mobile; stop trying to tell others how to act and determine what our true interests are. Wake me when that occurs... :wry:
Slap is right, we don't need the Generals to sort it -- those guys grew up in and are captives of a system; that system effectively started in 1917 and then shot its wad in 1945. It has for the most part and as an institution totally failed to keep up with events since that time, it's consistently a few days late and a bunch more than a dollar short. There have been individuals in the services who understood what was required but they and their ideas generally were shoved aside.
I do disagree with Slap on one point -- IMO, SF has done a little better since the early 60s but even they are not realizing their potential...
Anyone who thinks we've got much of anything right since DoD was created really needs to look at where we are and what we're doing -- and how long we've been there...