Leave or Stay

[Levi]

Gentlemen (and Ladies? Where are you?)

After reading the various threads here (at least skimming) there is a lot of information, and opinion. Many links. I have come to believe (my opinion) that some members would ( my opinion, no offense) be very careful what they say assuming others, maybe peers or even superiors, may read what is put out here. So while I can find tons of specific thoughts on failures and successes, I am having a hard time gleaning "the bottom line" of peoples opinion on whether to leave, and if so, when. I know personally one person who is involved on the US side, and while I know he does not influence policy, he is certainly more influential than the average service member. I know what he thinks. Last year I had the chance to speak to some Pakistani ex-pats, in France. I know what they thought.

So what do you think? Leave, or stay? If we leave, when? Be specific if you can, please. I would also like (although I saw this covered in another thread) a plain language explanation of what you believe will be the result of our leaving, or if you think we should stay, why and what happens down the road? I know there are more than 5 members here, I am hoping for a broad range of responses from different country's and ethnic backgrounds. I am seeing my friend soon, and would like to be able to compare notes on where folks stand on the issue. I won't be mad if there is no response here.

[TDB]

I've been a frequent commentator on Afghanistan. I'm affraid I'm a rather boring white, middle class lad from South Wales. In terms of should we leave? The plan has always been to eventually leave. When should be leave? Now the problem with both of these question is, as I see it, we have to ask the bigger question of what we are leaving. The 2014 deadline for the end of combat operations is predicated on ANSF being able to take over day to day security and COIN operations. Now hypothetically (yes we've debated the state of ANSF at length in other threads) supposing that come later 2014 this the case, then we can justify the withdrawal of combat forces in bulk (I'm a cynical bastard and we all know that troops will go either way). Now what ISAF will look like after that is another thing entirely. We can expect some form of armed military presence outside of OMLTs and PRTs, mostly likely at the invitation (" ") of the GIRoA in a CT role. We won't be leaving Afghanistan for a long while yet. I don't think we should either, to cut and run would leave a country that could easily slide into further conflict, drastically destablising the entire region. I'm no warmonger, there needs to be drastic changes to the strategy in Afghanistan, but that's off topic.

[Levi]

So... leave when the Afghanistan Military and police can take over. Or the cynical view, they can't, and we pull out anyway (and if that is the case, why not start loading c130's this very instant??) I am beginning to worry that we (the US) won't leave until we literally can't afford to be there. And when did Al Jazeera get bought by CNN? Seems like the same message, lately. Anyway.

[TDB]

Well combat missions WILL end in three years time regardless of where the ANSF or GIRoA is. The big question is, what will be left behind in terms of the international presence. Will the focus shift, as I suspect, towards to the Afghan-Pakistan border which is already receiving great attention. Much of the rhetotic emerging from the U.S, both military and government, is that Pakistan is very much in bed with the Haqqanis. something which has been known for sometime, admitting you have a problem is the first step no? So what I expect to happen is while security will be handed over to ANA and ANP in Helmand and other areas we'll still see some presence in the eastern border areas where the populations have not been restive and resistant to control by central government. Now, what form this will take is rather hard to say. It seems that Afghan Special Forces aren't doing too badly for themselves having received huge funding and training by the best Special Forces out there. So I think it would be safe assume that we're likely to the Afghans taking the lead with the international community still contributing largely to logistics and intelligence. I'm repeating a lot of what a skimmed over in my last post. What can't be forgotten is that political pressure at home for Obama as he enters election year is probably at the forefront of his thinking. A huge part of his campaign will be based around sticking to this deadline, it's all in the wording. In terms of cost, it has been great both in blood and treasure, there is little certainty at the moment that the ends have justified the means. That is say, as it stand the blood and treasure has been squandered. All of this seems a little forlorn as we are still three fighting seasons from the deadline, who knows what could happen between now and then.

[Ray]

An interesting thought has been put forward for discussion.

It is too complex for a clear cut answer given the imponderables.

Should or should not the ISAF quit and if so, when?

It all depends on if the West can stay the course. There are many facets to it and it is not military alone.

Given that the US' influence as a world power is waning, there are others who are waiting in the wings to fill the void and who have the clout and have been developing the same in an unobtrusive manner and also making peaceful inroads in the region.

Will the US totally abdicate her role that she held so far of being capable of dictating terms to the world and instead become insular?

Most importantly, will Americans take kindly to becoming a second rate power?

In so far as the players of the region who are around and have a stake in Afghanistan, there is the live possibility of a competitive rush to fill the void if the US and ISAF leave.

It will open up interesting and worrisome situations.

Interestingly, it might not be in pursuit of carving a sphere of influence alone, it maybe spurred with the aim to keep fundamentalism from spilling into their area since the void may throw up a similar situation as when USSR quit.

Yet, I believe there is a move afoot to have an international 'peace keeping' organisation to fill the void.

TDB's post also gives an interesting view.

[TDB]

I considered this idea of an international peace keeping force, but could not for the life of me think who would lead it. The two obvious organisations are the UN and the EU. Now, the UN, if memory serves me right then two of the biggest (if not THE biggest) contributors of peace keepers are India and Pakistan. These two countries can be ruled out of any force outright for what are obvious reasons. Now we can say that many of the countries who are involved in Afghanistan at the moment, many of whom have the largest military budgets in the world will not want to be involved in large numbers. So we have to consider who within the UN would contribute, African nations maybe but the AU is involved in a costly conflict in Somalia (though largely bankrolled by the US).

So to the EU, now the EU has no experience in mounting an operation of this scale. It's experience in Kosovo has been shambolic at best and down right criminal at worst. Also we have to bear in mind that France and the UK make up over 50% of the unions military. I doubt that either country will be willing to commit large numbers of men or money to it. Opinion on the war in Europe has soured.

[Levi]

If we are fighting a war, then there should be dead enemy soldiers (insurgents, whatever) to be counted and compared to the total number of enemy believed to exist. Then at some point, you can say, all or most of the enemy is gone, and we (US) leave. Otherwise, we just stay FOREVER. I read a bunch of the "winning in afghanistan" threads, and searched "COIN" threads, and I just don't see the "WIN". Is staying forever winning? Will the ANF members all be from one tribe? I understand completely what you are saying Ray, and it makes sense. But building an infrastructure for the enemy to take over when we finally do leave doesn't seem like a great idea either. Who uses the roads Russia built? The Taliban and AQ stay off them when we aren't around? I don't think staying and pouring lives and money into a foreign country means "strength". If we were that strong, we could just walk out and who cares what anyone thinks. I am beginning to think that staying and caring is weak foreign policy. Tell me international politics is not like kids on a playground. You don't pick a fight with the kid that you know will punch you in the face and laugh all the way to the office.

I say we leave for a while. See what happens.

[Dayuhan]

It all depends on if the West can stay the course. There are many facets to it and it is not military alone.

What benefit does the US or the West get if they "stay the course"? Anything that would justify the cost? What is this "course" that we're supposed to stay, anyway? Does it go anywhere that benefits us?

Will the US totally abdicate her role that she held so far of being capable of dictating terms to the world and instead become insular?

Most importantly, will Americans take kindly to becoming a second rate power?

How does not draining yourself in Afghanistan make you a second rate power? Historically, what great powers have ever fallen because they failed to impose themselves in remote and insignificant corners of the world? How many have fallen because they overextended themselves and bled themselves dry with the cost of pointless ventures?

Did the US become a "second rate power" after Vietnam? Everybody makes mistakes. The smart recognize them and act to rectify them, rather than pretending they weren't mistakes and riding them to perdition. Mistakes do damage, but the resilient can recover.

In so far as the players of the region who are around and have a stake in Afghanistan, there is the live possibility of a competitive rush to fill the void if the US and ISAF leave.

A competitive rush into Afghanistan?? Why?? That's like a competitive rush to acquire herpes. If Afghanistan is so desirable, why is it that from the Soviet withdrawal to 9/11 nobody, anywhere, had the remotest interest in it?

It's worth noting that the US presence in Afghanistan actually decreases US influence in the region. As long as the US requires access to Pakistani ports and transit routes to supply their Afghan operations, Pakistan has the US effectively checkmated: the US cannot effectively apply any leverage on Pakistan. The US need for air bases in the north has forced us into accommodation with one of the most unsavory regimes on the planet (Uzbekistan) and allowed the Russians and the Chinese to exert indirect leverage on us by potentially pressuring Kyrgyzstan to restrict US access. Those bases are as much liability as asset; they put us at the mercy of people with interests that can easily diverge from ours. As long as we need them, our influence is reduced.

In hard, realistic, practical terms, what does the Afghan venture gain the US? What does it cost the US? If that calculation comes up negative - and it pretty clearly does - the answer is to go... though realistically it's less about staying or going than trying to devise a face-saving exit strategy and a way to gradually scale down.

Sometimes when an enterprise was ill conceived from the start, you have to cut your losses and take an ego bruise or two, rather than cling, "stay a course" that's going nowhere useful, and take more damage down the line. It's not terminal. The US survived losing in Vietnam, it can survive cutting its losses in Afghanistan.

[taabistan]

Leave.

The American and British governments haven't provided any persuasive arguments for staying in Afghanistan. They have confused state-building, development, defeating the Taliban and defeating al-Qaeda. In fact, there are so many reasons being provided, I'm beginning to think their answer is 'We're there' and they are almost inventing reasons to justify their presence.

We are going to look back at the post-9/11 decade with despair. What the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan was a humiliating mess. To be spending 145 billion dollars a year and keeping 150,000 troops in a country that is historically hostile to foreigners, and incurring heavy casualties while claiming successes, is downright insanity.

What is most baffling are the words being used to describe these two countries: failed states, governance, neo-Taliban, warlordism, tribalism, ISI-inspired terror. These are all buzzwords, hypnotizing jargon that is misleading and creates the very problems we claim we're trying to solve.

I think Afghanistan is a wonderful country, filled with energy and intelligence. But it's a country that requires 30-40 years of patient rebuilding, and is a job that will have to be done by Afghans themselves. The US and International community simply do not have the resources, the time, the cultural and linguistic expertise and, most importantly, the consent of the local population to accomplish the grand goals they had set out to achieve.

[Dayuhan]

there are so many reasons being provided, I'm beginning to think their answer is 'We're there' and they are almost inventing reasons to justify their presence.

Inertia is a potent force in human affairs...

[taabistan]

Inertia is a potent force in human affairs...

That and the fundamental question that drives national politics: have the soldiers died in vain? It's a question of exaggerated fears, of moral obligations.

To use a dangerous phrase, 'failure is not an option.'

In a sense, it almost doesn't matter if the mission is succeeding or not.

I don't envy Bush, Blair, Obama, etc. It requires extraordinary strength to speak to the mother of a dead soldier, or a soldier who has lost his limbs, and tell him that the failure of a mission has been realized and there is a need to withdraw.

P.S. I don't believe anyone dies in vain. Soldiers die with a sense of mission and bravery. The value of their death isn't hinged on the policy-makers in Washington or London. Nor is it valued by sending more soldiers.

[Levi]

P.S. I don't believe anyone dies in vain. Soldiers die with a sense of mission and bravery.

I respectfully disagree with that. That's not how anyone dies. Combat or otherwise.

TDB:

Your response to the Prince of Wales thing was the best. I laughed for an hour over that. If you are ever in the States, you are MORE than welcome to stay on the farm if the need arrises. We can shoot stuff. Or blow stuff up. Let me know in advance, and I will have Scotch and cigars on hand.

As for my original question, it seems that most are in agreement that not much is to be gained by the US staying in Afghanistan, which reflects the feelings of people I have spoken to who live int the region. Any rebuilding will be, of course, done by the people of Afghanistan, with help from country's in the region. So lets (the US) GTFO. Soonest. Are those in position to say that, saying it? Or are we still pushing COIN? Because right now, this instant, or 5 years from now, what difference will it make? Does COIN encompass generational time frames?

[omarali50]

The question is how to get out while obtaining the best possible consequences. And that depends on what the desired ends in the region are.
My hope (vain hope) would be that the US gets out while making friends with Iran and India and while getting Pakistan to do the same.
Of course, I know thats not going to happen. But what a boon that would be to the people of the region!

[TDB]

I respectfully disagree with that. That's not how anyone dies. Combat or otherwise.

TDB:

Your response to the Prince of Wales thing was the best. I laughed for an hour over that. If you are ever in the States, you are MORE than welcome to stay on the farm if the need arrises. We can shoot stuff. Or blow stuff up. Let me know in advance, and I will have Scotch and cigars on hand.

As for my original question, it seems that most are in agreement that not much is to be gained by the US staying in Afghanistan, which reflects the feelings of people I have spoken to who live int the region. Any rebuilding will be, of course, done by the people of Afghanistan, with help from country's in the region. So lets (the US) GTFO. Soonest. Are those in position to say that, saying it? Or are we still pushing COIN? Because right now, this instant, or 5 years from now, what difference will it make? Does COIN encompass generational time frames?

Why thank you kind sir and the invitation works both ways, except I don't have a farm, any guns or explosives. I do however have Scotch and cigars.

The picture of what the strategy towards Afghanistan becomes more confusing by the day. The U.S is stepping up the rhetoric towards Pakistan and the Haqqani network. Karzai seems to have slipped even further into the depths of insanity. I'd be really interest to read an article about the state of Marjah and Nad Ali a year an a half after Moshtarak. While we know the Taliban were simply pushed into other areas like Nahr-e Saraj, I'd be interested to know how the "hold" and "build" aspects have gone. I know a year ago Marjah seemed to be improving in terms of ISAF-Local relations. The reason I'm bringing this up is because Marjah was being held up as a shinging example, if it has "worked" then it could boad well for the rest of Helmand. The East of the country is a altogether more tricky one.