Afghanistan's Drug Problem

[marct]

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.

Try logic instead of ad hominen attacks.

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.

No, it is not "criminal negligence" as you state. It may be irresponsible, but it is not criminal, and it just highlights why your claim is ridiculous. Would you argue that since US and Brit politicians have the ability and means to reduce deaths by car accident, and they do, that they are criminally negligent in not doing so? If you would, then I have to wonder what criminal code you are referring to.

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.

Well, I never said that it wasn't an error .

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)

I am quite familiar with how the Romans managed their empire both militarily and politically. I am also well aware that it is not a simple matter of numbers; although there are minimum numbers necessary to do what you suggested, and those numbers where not available in Afghanistan.

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.

I will certainly grant you that the US rationale for being in Afghanistan has changed over the years. Also, since the US has adopted the somewhat irrational goal of stating that their strategic rationale is to deny facilities to AQ etc. as their current rationale, there are some quite serious problems, many of which are exacerbated by US domestic politics.

And why do you say that the balance of my comment is silly? Is it because you know what you know and facts have nothing to do with it?

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.

Try reading something about logic and look up the Rule of the Excluded Third. I have probably read more AARs, from the Brits, Americans and Canadians than most people, and it is quite obvious that the actual amount of lessons learned from Vietnam, etc., is fairly low. That said, that same apparent ignorance needs to be put into a domestic political context where 'strategies" are often defined and imposed by politicians who have no concept of military operations and don't care about anything beyond the next election. Who do you think imposes the RoE's on the troops?

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.

That was implied, but I probably should have spelled it out.

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.

Again, go study some basic logic and ask yourself what effect such actions would have on the general population once they were demobbed.

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.

Mugabe is a psychotic and, in this instance, a red herring.

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.

The Tamil Tigers are an interesting example but, I have to wonder, how appropriate to a discussion of Afghanistan. Are we likely to the the ANA pushing the Taliban into a pocket and annihilating them? Probably not, and ISAF forces are not likely to do so either since a) they are not the government and b) they can't get access to FATA. The Tigers, you'll note, didn't have a safe haven, while the Taliban do.

As far as Syria is concerned, it appears to be turning into a multi-sided proxy fight. There are potential analogs with Afghanistan, but I would be very careful about them.

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.

So what? The US and the Brits do. Deal with what is rather than what you might wish to be.

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.

Sigh. Of course, the Soviets were nothing but Bronze Age barbarians. I have many problems with how ISAF has handled their campaign, but the ability to exploit Western weaknesses has been know for a long time, so I wouldn't give the Taliban more than their due.

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.

Politicians listen only to themselves and their political advisers. Their choice to "adopt" the views of academics or military people people is undertaken solely on whether or not those people's ideas match the politicians preconceptions. Any competent student of practical politics knows this.

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

And anyone who knows Byzantine history will agree that his "thoughts" on that are singularly uninformed.