Green on Blue: causes and responses (merged thread)

[Wyatt]

best part of the Crocker interview was the information on the early iranian involvement. I have read a decent amount on afghanistan (a pittance compared to many here) but I had never head anything about that what so ever. Very interesting.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl

That is what Amb Crocker said in the presentation I linked to. He said the links between the two are still strong and if a 9-11 were to occur here again, it would most likely originate from a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

You all MUST listen to this presentation. He does not mince words. It is the best thing I've heard on this in a long long time.

I think the comment about another 9/11 coming out of a Taliban controlled Afghanistan is the only comment he made that I didn't concur with. Maybe or maybe not, but they don't need this type of safehaven to facilitate that type of attack. I suspect the Americans for the most part are prepared to stay the course by providing funding to sustain the Afghan security forces after we withdraw most of our combat power. It is cheap insurance.

I thought the most important historical tidbit he pointed out was that the USSR installed government and security forces didn't fail until the Afghan government couldn't/wouldn't pay their soldiers, which was the beginning of the end. I suspect that was due to the USSR pulling the rug out from under their feet. A mistake we don't want to make.

Excellent presentation.

[JMA]

I think the comment about another 9/11 coming out of a Taliban controlled Afghanistan is the only comment he made that I didn't concur with. Maybe or maybe not, but they don't need this type of safehaven to facilitate that type of attack. I suspect the Americans for the most part are prepared to stay the course by providing funding to sustain the Afghan security forces after we withdraw most of our combat power. It is cheap insurance.

I thought the most important historical tidbit he pointed out was that the USSR installed government and security forces didn't fail until the Afghan government couldn't/wouldn't pay their soldiers, which was the beginning of the end. I suspect that was due to the USSR pulling the rug out from under their feet. A mistake we don't want to make.

Excellent presentation.

Bill, with respect. Think Vietnam.

Is it only Americans who think that this will be anything other than a rerun of that debacle?

The (US) money won't filter down into the pay packets of the troops and the US Congress will pull the funding... and the whole of the Karzai regime will move to Dubai to live happily ever after on the billions of US cash already stashed there... and Afghanistan will return to its old ways.

[davidbfpo]

I couldn't locate the video of Amb. Crocker, so settled for the transcript and found a few good passages:

...we, Americans, are not overly brilliant at. We’re all about today and tomorrow....So we tend to lose track of how important history is elsewhere in the world and how it shapes the present and informs the future.

Ken W. in particular reminds us of this American habit.

Iran-US cooperation:

During those pre-attack discussions—and you’ll remember the air war began in early October—the Iranian thrust was, you know, what do you need to know to knock their blocks off? You want their order of battle? Here’s the map. You want to know where we think their weak points are? Here, here, and here. You want to know how we think they’re going to react to an air campaign? Do you want to know how we think the Northern Alliance will behave? Ask us. We’ve got the answers; we’ve been working with those guys for years. This was an unprecedented period since the revolution of, again, a U.S.- Iranian dialogue on a particular issue where we very much had common interest and common cause.

Incidentally there is no mention of the Indians, who had an advisory group with the Northern Alliance - the only foreign "boots on the ground". Nor the discussions and agreements with Iran before Gulf War Two, especially over overflight, SAR etc.

Back to Iran & Afghanistan:

The Iranians have always pulled their punches in Afghanistan. They could have been a lot worse than they have been. The only explosively formed projectile—EFP that killed so many Americans in Afghanistan we’ve ever found evidence of—in Iraq, sorry—the only one we’ve ever found evidence of in Afghanistan was an inert one that we believe was left for us to find as a reminder—say, you know, we’re only using one hand, and only three fingers on that hand.

On the ANA/ANSF I too wondered, especially when reading they still today have a 15% absentee or desertion problem.

[Fuchs]

Iran-US cooperation:

That's from the short period when the Iranian government proposed political peace and cooperation to the U.S..
A 'historical' chance that the Neocons threw away because they preferred their model of what the world is like over facts.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA

Bill, with respect. Think Vietnam.

Is it only Americans who think that this will be anything other than a rerun of that debacle?

The (US) money won't filter down into the pay packets of the troops and the US Congress will pull the funding... and the whole of the Karzai regime will move to Dubai to live happily ever after on the billions of US cash already stashed there... and Afghanistan will return to its old ways

.

Ultimately those who doubt our commitment to remain committed may sadly prove to be correct. We have some wise advisors in our Department of State and Department of Defense who like AMB Crocker admit they can't predict the future the 30th and 40th order effects of any decision, they can still provide the President and Congress sound recommendations based on history and convergence of trends that are shaping the future. Yet as I suspect most know those decisions are ultimately made by politicians who are more concerned about short term influence over the electorate than long term strategic influence in the world.

Based on this reality any doctrine we develop that relies on enduring efforts is often doomed from the start because we fail to understand our own context, even if we have (bold statement I know) have a good understanding of the historic context in the foreign countries we're trying to influence.

[Dayuhan]

I suspect that was due to the USSR pulling the rug out from under their feet. A mistake we don't want to make.

Maybe it would be a mistake, that would depend on circumstances. If we're pouring money in, the money is pouring out into offshore accounts, and the troops aren't being paid, do we pour more money in? All the US can do is help, we can't make a government function or stand. If we're helping and the government in question isn't doing it's share, we have to pull the plug, come what may. Nobody anywhere should have a blank check on US support.

Of course if the plug gets pulled there will be a chorus of howls about debacles and betrayals and abandonment, that's a given. Still gotta do what you gotta do.

[carl]

People often say that attacks on the scale of 9-11 can be done from somewhere else, Yemen, Somalia, Western Europe etc. I have never bought that. Amb Crocker explained why it can't be done from Yemen. Western Europe is crawling with proficient police forces and intel services who are paying attention and whose individual officers and agents dream of being able to nab an AQ guy. If AQ wanted to use the area that used to be Somalia, they would have to get the Somaliland gov to go for it, which it probably won't, or the Puntland gov to go for it which probably won't and if they went to Mog the Ugandans would kill them and if they went south the Kenyans would kill them (both with copious help from us) and that would leave them with only thorny scrubland presided over by who knows who with access to nowhere.

They are in the best and probably only place for them in the world now, Pakistan mostly, because the Pak Army/ISI doesn't mind them too much. If Taliban took back Afghanistan there would be an even better place for them. This isn't before 9-11 anymore. Everybody is paying attention. They haven't gone anywhere else because they can't. The advantage of having a place where the authorities not only won't come after you but actually support you can't be done without.

Amb Crocker said some things about Kabul but I wish he had said more. The size of that place is a major change from 2001 as he mentioned. It has to have a very great effect upon how far a Pak Army/ISI supported Taliban & Co will be able to go after 2014.

Maybe H. Karzai has no intention of bugging out if the time comes. Amb Crocker very strongly said that Mr. Karzai's life depends upon what happens. That doesn't sound like a guy who is planning on running. And he has done some very brave things in the past.

Who knows how good the ANSF is, but it only has to be better than Taliban & Co. Another thread talked about some Taliban acknowledging that they cannot take Kabul. So it may not be such a sure thing how far Taliaban & Co. can go after 2014.

David mentioned the Indians. I wish Amb Crocker had had the time too also. They are the gorilla that sits quietly in the corner. If we decide to stop paying for the insurance policy that a post 2014 ANSF would be, I suspect the Indians, the Iranians, the Turks, the Russkis and the U-Pick-Astanis will make their own arrangements.

[Bill Moore]

Attacks that did not require a safe haven in Afghanistan
1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway
1995 Oklahoma City Bombing
2002 Bali Bombins
2004 Madrid Train Bombings
2004 Beslan school hostage crisis
2005 London bombings
2006 Mumbai train bombings
Thousands of terrorist attacks in Iraq, now Syria.
Contrary to the Ambassador's claims, Al Qaeda in Yemen have been developing some cutting edge tactics and techniques for conducting terrorist attacks against airlines.

Future attacks will not require a safe haven since Al Qaeda is now largely decentralized and its core becoming less relevant. Terrorists historically have often found safe haven in major western cities by practicing good operational tradecraft and operations security measures. Safe haven for an insurgency and terrorists are two different animals. An intelligent mass murderer could develop a 9/11 like plot in his home and with funding facilitate the development of a cell to conduct the attack. Many will fail, just like the 9/11 should have in hindsight, but due to human error and dumb luck some will succeed. Training for the attacks could have taken place in U.S., much like the actual 9/11 hijackers did with flight school, martial arts training, etc. (flight simulators, recon airport secuirty, etc.). No doubt having Afghanistan was nice, but it isn't necessary to facilitate a major terrorist attack, and now operating from Afghanistan if more likely to result in compromise than success. We would be foolish to assume that any one piece of dirt is critical, and excessive focus on that piece of dirt will blind us to threats emerging from other parts of the world. We created a narrative that we can't escape from.
Future so called safe havens will definitely include parts of the many of the new Arab Spring countries, Yemen, Iraq, Mali, Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Somalia, etc. They will include the world of cyber which result in radicalized individuals in our own cities.

The Ambassador has a wealth of experience on point in a lot of rough areas, but like all he is subject to personal biases and clings to the narrative that he was part and parcel in creating.

[carl]

Bill:

Nope, Amb Crocker is right. AQ hasn't changed its ideology, nor has Taliban nor has Pak Army/ISI. If Taliban & Co were to reacquire Afghanistan, I see no reason at all why they would not resume doing what they had done before.

This is a semantic point but I'll bring it up. Amb Crocker referred to another 9-11. I referred to another 9-11. None of the attacks you mentioned were on the scale of 9-11 nor were any of them intended to be on the scale of 9-11. Now to your list.

I think you may be casting your net a little bit wide when you throw in Beslan, and Oklahoma City. Yes obviously attacks can be planned and carried out by other people in other places than Pak Army/ISIland and Afghanstan but the context of the discussion is AQ or AQ affiliated or sympathetic organizations. If you are going to include Beslan, OKC and Tokyo why not throw in the attack on Mecca or the Red Army Brigades in Italy or killing of the guy in Sarajevo that started WWI? And if you are going to include Iraq and Syria why not include Vietnam, Algeria, Cyprus and all the terror associated with the war in central Africa in the 90s and 2000s?

I did read that some of the London train bombers traveled to Pakistan for training. The failed Times Square bomber traveled to Pakistan for training and the guy from Denver who wanted to blow up the subway traveled to Pakistan for training. And the Mumbai attack was planned and run by the ISI from Pakistan. So I think that if you want to run a big op, especially a big complicated one, are AQ or affiliated, there is only one place in the world you can do that from and that is Pak Army/ISIland now, and Afghanistan if Taliban & Co get their bloody mitts on it again.

AQ in Yemen may be able to sneak an explosive cartridge on a cargo plane or make jockey shorts that might go bang but those are not ops on the scale of 9-11. In order to do something like that you need a country that likes you to live in. Cyber planning always sounds good but people still have to train somewhere, practice somewhere and make things somewhere. About the only place they can do that now, in the context of which we are speaking, is Pak Army/ISIland or perhaps Afghanistan again in the future.

We would be foolish to think that any one piece of dirt the only one that is needed to do bad things from. But we would be equally foolish to not to recognize that one particular piece of dirt is critical, and has been critical if you are looking at a particular type of big attack.

Ultimately though, the point isn't that is it possible that something big could be pulled off from somewhere else. Amb Crocker said that if Taliban gets Afghanistan back, AQ will be back with them. The last time that happened, it was not good.