Interesting post, Jonathan. I suggest it isn't messy and it isn't great...
All relatively speaking of course -- and no intent to be derisory; merely to express some agreement and some disagreement. There have been messier wars, many -- and some we were involved in meet that standard. I doubt, by any measure it will ever be accorded 'greatness.'
I think any discussion of whether it's
Quote:
"...classical guerrilla war as opposed to being part of a Fourth Generation War against al Quada."
is an esoteric and academic debate of little value. I also shudder when anyone mentions Malaya in relation to Iraq or Afghanistan. No corollary at all, I think -- mostly because our US preferred option is to establish a host nation government of whatever sort we can (preferably with a 'friendly' leader) and act as invitees of that government * . In Malaya, the British were the government, that fact alone, much less the size and numbers argue against any use of Malaya for much.
I strongly agree with you that a military victory is not possible; only an acceptable outcome can be obtained in any COIN operation. With that fact -- and it is a fact in today's world -- in mind, I believe that Obama, McCain, Gates, Spinney et.al. are wrong. We do not have enough troops to do the standard COIN model in a nation the size of Afghanistan. I further believe that even if we had the numbers, it would make little difference. There are other military options that could achieve success but we cannot and will not pursue them.
Afghanistan -- or that region -- has been the way it is for several thousand years. We are not going to change it. Period. They will chew up what is sent, spit it out and go right back to their way of life. Can incremental changes to improve the lot of the ordinary Afghan be pursued? Certainly. However, we should recognize up front those changes will be incremental -- and even those slight modifications will come slowly. While I essentially agree with the solutions you propose, I suggest that the entrenched bureaucracies (all of them, including the Afghan government, the NGOs, the other Nations involved, NATO, the US Army and USSOCOM) will not support the program, at least not to the extent required. Given the number of players, the possibility of achieving a consensus on procedures is unlikely. I also think you omit mention of the Pakistan problem and solution of that is critical.
Afghanistan will go the way of those who have the most will to stick it out. My reluctant and regrettable suspicion is that will not be the western nations.
* A solution that has never worked for us and one would think we'd learn better. Apparently not. Seems illogical to me to take on a job and willingly give the folks you're trying to change a veto over what you can do...
Supply line to Afghanistan
This interesting article: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JH12Df02.html refers to
KARACHI - The Taliban and al-Qaeda have with some success squeezed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's)supply lines that run through Pakistan into Afghanistan, especially goods in transit in Khyber Agency on the border. Now, according to Asia Times Online contacts, the target area is being shifted to the southern port city of Karachi, where almost 90% of NATO's shipments land, including vital oil. From this teeming financial center, 80% of the goods go to Torkham in Khyber Agency on their way to the Afghan capital of Kabul. About 10% go to Chaman, then on to the northern Afghan city of Kandahar. The remaining NATO supplies arrive in Afghanistan by air and other routes.
I recall sometime ago that some NATO allies rely on supplies via Iran and this was taken to explain their reluctance over the US policy on Iran.
davidbfpo