Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Why forget it? You are making a claim that is, basically, indefensible unless you are willing to extend it to other "causes" of death in the US. Would you make the same claim against the use of force in securing oil fields even though there are 40,000+ deaths per year due to car accidents in the US?
No, that's no better than a high school level argument. So I need to be careful because I don't know how old you are.

For those with a greater grasp of the situation it would be clear that while the incidence of road traffic accident deaths/alcohol related deaths/deaths from smoking are (or should be) a major cause for concern back in the US the US and Brit politicians and their military general staff have the ability and the means to take action to significantly reduce the 90% of the heroin production in the world coming out of Afghanistan. Not to do so is criminal negligence.

The simple question must be asked why the US government (under both Bush and Obama) have chosen to cosy up to an obviously corrupt and democratically illegitimate regime ... together with scum of the earth druglords and warlords who infest the country.

I appreciate there is no simple answer to this question so the standard response is either silence or the cute (but somewhat childish) stuff I am dealing with now.

First off, the socio-technical context of Afghanistan is quite different from that of Vietnam. I truly doubt that the "lessons" have been forgotten. Instead, I would argue that the "solutions" have been rendered impossible - and don't forget that the US lost Vietnam. Even if we draw on the lessons of Malasia, which could be argued as a limited "win", those solutions are still impossible in the current socio-technical regime.

Two points here:
  1. Force levels
  2. International law


ISAF does not, and is unlikely ever to have, sufficient force levels to actually monitor down to the village level. That was why this silliness with VSO was created. Second, international law precludes using overt proxies to commit actions that are chargable as war crimes. Look at the Canadian experience with handing over detainees to the Afghan government and where that left the CF.

Cheers,

Marc
You see this is what happens when civilians make the leap of arrogance in deluding themselves that they understand all about wars and how best to approach specific problems.

First off, I repeat, the error was made to turn the rout of the Taliban into a nation building exercise. George Bush has a lot to answer for in this regard.

Now while troops are there they should at least attempt to the job they are there for (if they know what it is, that is). It is not a simple case of troop numbers it is more how the troops are used. (Hint: go read up how the Romans managed to 'control' an empire with relatively few troops)

If the problem with the Taliban was that they harboured AQ and then refused to hand OBL and others over to the US (thus providing a much needed pretext - and target - for the the US to strike out post 9/11) then on the positive side were their attempts to curb poppy production in Afghanistan.

Yes one understands that if the US were to go after the druglords and poppy production (in addition to the Taliban) it would mean that they would be at war with just about everyone in Afghanistan with their only (temporary) friends being those with pockets full from the indiscriminate and poorly controlled distribution of US aid money.

The balance of your comment is quite silly.

First I challenge you or anyone to establish how much currently serving officers and NCOs actually understand about the 'lessons' from Vietnam or other insurgencies. Just as if you did the same with Brits about the 'lessons' out of Malaysia and Kenya I suggest it will be sure to be an eye opener.

My alternative was that they (given the self imposed RoE) they have no idea how to deal with the Taliban.

You need to define how you see 'win' in this circumstance. Of course you seem to believe you have already considered that all the solutions have been rendered impossible. Now if you had qualified that with the words: "politically and legally acceptable to the US and European countries" you may be onto something. This is an important point.

Those of us who have actually fought a counterinsurgency war quickly come to realise that our inability to descend to the levels of depraved barbarity against the civilian population that the insurgents invariably do means effectively our best hope is for a negotiated settlement.

This applies to those who had some human restraint and in the absence of laws some conscience.

This does not of course apply to the likes of Robert Mugabe and his North Korean trained 5th Brigade who through butchering civilians in quantities of tens of thousands effectively poisoned the water (the people) in which the Ndebele 'dissidents' (the fish) moved (swam). That solution worked - and I did say (go read what I wrote) using proxies would be problematic in any circumstances but obviously impossible if a 'gukurahundi' solution was considered.

Then move onto Sri Lanka. After years of pussy-footing around with the Tamil Tigers finally figured it out (with a little help from the Chinese).

Now look at Syria.

So yes there is international law for those who bother with it. The Russians, Chinese and those nations under their tutelage don't give a damn.

In fact the Taliban have become so adept at exploiting the weaknesses in ISAF military capacity that they taken themselves out of the iron-age to giant killer status as they give ISAF the run around.

The problem is that the more clueless 'academics' start to voice uninformed opinion on matters of warfare the greater the chances are that the politicians may just listen to them with further catastrophic consequences.

More people should read Edward Luttwak as a balance to the current nonsense been peddled around.