After Action Report-General Barry R McCaffrey USA (Ret) Afgahanistan

[Kreker]

As usual GEN McCaffrey (USA, ret) provides a thorough compliation and interpretation of his interaction and views of the situation in Afghanistan, and he is well received by a wide audience. I appreciate his valuable insights and, in this case, his emotions to what's happening.

That said, he discusses conditions on how the battle will be won:
- The battle will be won in Afghanistan when there is an operational Afghan
police presence in the nation's 34 provinces and 398 Districts.
- The battle will be won when the current Afghan National Army expands from
80,000 troops to 200,000 troops with appropriate equipment, training, and
leadership and embedded NATO LNO teams. (Afghanistan is 50% larger
than Iraq and has a larger population.)
- The battle will be won when we deploy a five battalion US Army engineer
brigade with attached Stryker security elements to lead a five year road
building effort employing Afghan contractors and training and mentoring
Afghan engineers.
- The war will be won when we fix the Afghan agricultural system which
employs 82% of the population.
- The war will be won when the international community demands the
eradication of the opium and cannabis crops and robustly supports the
development of alternative economic activity.

It's interesting that he didn't relate to any of the following:
- Establishing a legitimate government
- Condition of the Taliban at end state (when the battle is won). And
conditions of other threat's at end state. Won't go into how he uses battle and war inchangeably.
- Condition of the current warlords who currently control the country side
and the drug trafficking at end state
- Regional impacts and/or solutions - you can't "fix" Afghanistan without
the assistance or control of its neighbors - Iran and Pakistan
- Role for the UN. This really shouldn't be just a NATO and US burden.
- Establishing and controlling a means of communication with the people
- Cultural and/or religious issues/concerns

Just some food for thought from my perspective.
Best regards,

[Ken White]

thorough and while he may be well received, I would hope that is true with some healthy skepticism applied...

Added: This is addressed to Kreker

Having said that, I think his phrase "the battle will be won" is a blatantly bad misstatement. I'm pretty well convinced there is no 'win' in a COIN operation lacking a Mongol or Roman solution; all one can do is achieve an acceptable outcome. That, to me, requires rational and achievable standards. *

Seems to me that his prescription suffers from overly simplistic assertions initially and his last two bullets you cite above are in the "not in my lifetime" category (be of good cheer, I'm 75 ; you may see it) -- while your items suffer from mind boggling complexity. That is not meant as an insult nor to be derogatory in any way; just by way of pointing out that your points are all desirable, highly desirable in fact but I think they are also mostly in the 'too hard box.'

I agree totally with your first item; think the second is probably unattainable lacking a couple of generations (see * above). I believe your third bullet is also in the multi-generation change arena; the fourth is indeed the big Kahuna and is likely beyond our control; the fifth is certainly desirable and may occur to an extent but as history shows, is unlikely to provide much real benefit; the sixth -- I hope you mean by the government of Afghanistan -- is going to take quite some time and the final one, I submit, should not be the concern of the US -- or the UN, indeed of anyone but the Afghans.

Long way of saying I hear both of you but I'm old, cynical -- and highly skeptical...

[Kreker]

I agree totally with your first item; think the second is probably unattainable lacking a couple of generations (see * above). I believe your third bullet is also in the multi-generation change arena; the fourth is indeed the big Kahuna and is likely beyond our control; the fifth is certainly desirable and may occur to an extent but as history shows, is unlikely to provide much real benefit; the sixth -- I hope you mean by the government of Afghanistan -- is going to take quite some time and the final one, I submit, should not be the concern of the US -- or the UN, indeed of anyone but the Afghans.

Ken,
I don't disagree with anything you stated. My intent was to generate thought on some important and compelling issues confronting the Afghans that were not addressed by McCaffrey. Instead of heaping praise on certain individuals and mentioning some solutions (even though some are questionable), I was hoping for more discussions on some of the issues I raised. Especially the first bullet which drives some, if not all, the others. I also find it disturbing that the report fails to address how Afghanistan is or is not in the vital interests of the US. If we are going to fight a 25 year war (at about $3 billion dollars a month), then Afghanistan had better be in the vital interests of the US. And this report ought to clearly establish how winning in Afghanistan is in the vital interests of the US, which in my mind it didn't.

From my sixth bullet...yes I inferred the Afghan government.
Best regrads,
Kreker

[MSG Proctor]

Apparently, India is weakening the security posture of the Pakistani government and multiplying the woes of the multiple-headed Afghan Coalition. This article also makes the case that India may be the 'strongest tribe' in the war there, and the way I read the article, that is not good for our interests in Afghanistan. (PDF here:

[Ken White]

Apparently, India is weakening the security posture of the Pakistani government and multiplying the woes of the multiple-headed Afghan Coalition. This article also makes the case that India may be the 'strongest tribe' in the war there, and the way I read the article, that is not good for our interests in Afghanistan.

He's broadly correct and sums up the failure to understand the AO (an endemic US affliction) well. One quote from the Scheuer article made me chuckle:

"Thus, the West’s lingering Cold War confidence that all nations can have the same interests in promoting peace and prosperity has crumpled in Afghanistan"

Not the first time and it won't be the last. That's not an error on the part of the West -- it is an error on the part of too many in the academic and policy businesses who are far too idealistic. There are really a lot of not very nice people in the world and they ain't gonna behave the way most of us would like.

It's fine to want decent behavior on the part of all; good to work toward that end -- but to assume that everyone wants peace, prosperity, tranquility and / or to do the right thing is hopelessly naive. Not going to happen.

[Ron Humphrey]

It's fine to want decent behavior on the part of all; good to work toward that end -- but to assume that everyone wants peace, prosperity, tranquility and / or to do the right thing is hopelessly naive. Not going to happen.

You sure do like to burst my bubble

On a side note:

I'm not always sure its necessarily naive to expect such behavior but when you don't see such behavior it's probably not wise to be surprised by it

[Ken White]

and as you wisely note, we just need to be a little more wise.

[Ken White]

... My intent was to generate thought on some important and compelling issues confronting the Afghans that were not addressed by McCaffrey.

Verily. I'm not now and have never been a McCaffrey fan but my Mommy told me not to say anything if all I had to say was bad...

Superficial, sound bite and 'flash and dash' all came to mind, though...

I was hoping for more discussions on some of the issues I raised.

Hopefully, I didn't derail that. My cynicism usually kicks in to the extent I'm not capable of discussing what should be versus what is.

Especially the first bullet which drives some, if not all the others.

I'd say all.

I also find it disturbing that the report fails to address how Afghanistan is or is not in the vital interests of the US. If we are going to fight a 25 year war (at about $3 billion dollars a month), then Afghanistan had better be in the vital interests of the US. And this report ought to clearly establish how winning in Afghanistan is in the vital interests of the US, which in my mind it didn't.

Now you've forced me to defend Barry. Not his job. I'd agree that a sage, thoughtful and highly competent former GeoComm commandante should be able to do that but...

That's really the crux, the vital interest part. I find it difficult to make a case that Afganistan, per se, is vital to US interests in any respect. OTOH, the fact that we went to Afghanistan and that we told them we would not again abandon them as we had post Soviet invasion has made the stand up of a viable (in regional and world norm, NOT western, terms) Afghanistan a vital US interest IMO.

Whether we should have made that statement or not is a different issue but we made it and we're stuck with it. We are already perceived as too willing to abandon people that we have encouraged to 'resist' (something...). I believe it is is vital in the true sense of the word that we stop doing that. Our reputation is not nearly as damaged in the world by the 'torture' mantra and the aggressiveness or even untrammeled capitalism as it is by not doing what we say we're going to do -- and by turning our backs on people who have simply done what we asked.

Could a better place to draw a line on that less than stellar behavior on our part have been found than Afghanistan or Iraq? Yes. However, again, we are where we are. So, I think it is vital that we finish it -- and I think it is the government's job to make and prove that point. Barry isn't helping...

[davidbfpo]

Ken....I don't disagree with anything you stated. My intent was to generate thought on some important and compelling issues confronting the Afghans that were not addressed by McCaffrey...Kreker

Kreker,

There has been quite a lively exchange on SWC on the fight in Afghanistan, from a variety of angles and on different threads.

My concern is that there is little sign Afghans want to fight for their own state and their absence reduces the public's agreement to staying there. I am mindful of the history of the UK's history in Afghanistan; that we are there on the other side of the Durand Line sixty years after independence for Pakistan and India is a quirk of history.

The increasing heroin production is a related issue and sometimes appears to be seen by drug czars as a different issue to the fight.

I suspect the UK's strategic interest is primarily Pakistan and then Afghanistan. The complex interplay between them, not excluding India, makes the situation a repeat of "The Great Game".

Application of thought in government(s) does appear to be missing, particularly the articulation of our national interest in public.

Hope that helps the debate.

davidbfpo

[Ken White]

...Application of thought in government(s) does appear to be missing, particularly the articulation of our national interest in public.

Note my almost British response.

Well said -- and too true. Too often true, come to think of it...

[Kreker]

Application of thought in government(s) does appear to be missing, particularly the articulation of our national interest in public.

and thanks for your additional comments.

Ken,
I also appreciate your forthright candor.

Best,