Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
Posted by TDB,



So? Exactly whose dollars and son's lives do you plan to be generous with if it doesn't serve our national interests?



Why are we concerned with the Afghan's internal insurgency? The fact that all hell was going to break lose wasn't missed by the regional experts, but it was ignored by the policy makers who decided to transform Afghanistan into a viable nation-state and not having a plan nor the resources to do so, assuming this is even possible. I'm not sure why "we" have to do something about this, or self interests are Al Qaeda and while there are some links between AQ and the insurgency they are not strong and the marriage of convenience won't last long if the cost of retaining the relationship is unacceptable.



There is the "we" again, why can't the Afghan people determine their own future? That is what an insurgency is all about.
Well the decision was made by the Bush administration when deciding to invade. Entering a country which was already in a mess, removing what little form of government there was and hoping everyone would suddenly realise they were free, put on suits and go and work in an officer. Hyperbole aside. If you make the decision to invade a country, then make the decision to put in place a government which will prevent terrorist from training in it, then you need to put the work in and make sure it works. Now I'm not going to say that the life of an Afghan civilian in 20 years time is worth more than a 19 year old soldier now. It pains me to hear the news that another British soldier has been killed. My point was not from an emotional stand point, it was from pratical stand point. The insurgency is of America's making, yes pointing the finger at the U.S. Going into a country with no idea of social/tribal/ethnic schisms, the way power is handled. This followed up by years of blundering by ISAF created the beast. The international community made the Taliban's job a hell of a lot easier.

As for national interest, staying away from the fuzzy idea that the whole world should just get along and someone has to slap people on the wrist when they fall out. Obama himself has talked about regional security, the situation is rapidly turning into one which resembles a failed state (not that I like using the term), IF (big if) when ISAF/US leave the GoIRA/ANA/ANP cannot cope and the Taliban return to power and decide to carry out their plans for a greater Pashtunistan in the FATA/NWFP I can't see India sitting idly by. This is pure speculation, but we know that both countries have an interest in Afghanistan due to their "cold war". Then there is the assent of China, involved in construction project in Afghanistan, tell that isn't in America's national interest. My point is that what goes on in Afghanistan is very much in the U.S national interest, it may not be in the interest of the voter, but when have the two been mutually exclusive.

Now, I'm not saying that we should carrying on with the "COIN" strategy in Afghanistan, because lets face it, it isn't COIN. In terms of blood and treasure, we could deffinitely see a reduction in the coist in blood if we implemented something more in line with what some of the Small Wars contributors perscribe.

Please do not, for one moment believe that I care nothing for the lives of service men and women. I do very much, having several close friends who have served in Afghanistan, the gut wrenching moment when a death is announced and the gap between that and the official naming is awful.