Agreed. I would also say that the use of proxies in warfare is not limited to the Cold War. We--the US--were French proxies when it was convenient for France and so it has gone throughout history. Proxy war is really an off shoot or 1st cousin of coalition warfare in that you are fighting together, you are letting someone else take on your enemies.Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Best
Tom
Agreed, Tom. Proxy warfare has been with us for centuries, and will continue to wait in the wings. I used the Cold War as an example because of both its length and the fact that it's a very recent example. It provides a really good look at a prolonged proxy war where the two powers never really "met on the battlefield" but waged a determined war just the same. It also played out during a time of increasing media coverage and wide dissemination of techniques and tactics, making its lessons more accessible and possibly appearing more relevant than some older examples.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
We conduct our own "dirty little wars" throughout the globe. We arm rebel groups, we finance media outlets that will broadcast anti-government sentiment, and we payroll politicians in opposing parties that would be "pro-US", and when we get caught doing it we wrap it around the flag and market it as a "pro-democracy" necessity to help those oppressed. However, when someone like Iran does the same thing to us in Afghanistan and Iraq we call it "interfering" and "acts of terrorism", when the reality is we can't have it both ways. We can't do it and then tell others it is wrong...that is absolutely poor leadership. No military leader will tell his troops not to drink and drive on a Saturday night, yet turn around and do it himself and then use his rank and authority to bypass any punishment or at least not do it and expect those he would wish to lead will believe he has any legitimacy. I would like to see Secretary Gates do more than drop in on Afghanistan with his pre-drafted agendas to spread the anti-Iran message and do the usual ass grab with Musharraf and gang in regards to the FATA and the Taliban sanctuaries provided by both. I am sure he was bedazzled by lots of PowerPoint and staff briefs that show how our men and women are taking it to the Taliban and that Pakistan's recent (yet another) attempt to offensively "clean out" the border regions will lead to more "success" and will give the Karazai government more time and room to grow.
I just returned from a trip to that part of the world, and my bottom line assessment is that the Taliban are fully in engaged Phase II (possibly moving into Phase III) of their insurgency against what I will comically call the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They have shadow governments throughout Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimruz Provinces. They are conducting offensive operations against military bases with the near term goal of over-running one in an effort to embarrass us and our Afghan counterparts (possibly the tipping point into Phase III), however some will argue Phase III is already here but not in a conventional sense we as westerners are used to...a discussion for a different thread. Anyway, the Taliban are successfully conducting thier insurgency for a few reasons, 1) they don't mass their forces inside well fortified base camps which are IMHO are greater source of revenue for the military industrial complex rather than a military necessity which runs counter-productive to a successful counter-insurgency strategy; 2) the Taliban don't have 10-15 staff officers for everyone "trigger puller" living in these same base camps demanding they attend no less than two VTCs daily, nor give them requirement to get their PowerPoint CONOP slides approved from half-way across the country before they push a 20 man element out to do some killing I mean "shaping operations"; 3) their logistics train isn't tied to a third country who continually provides sanctuary to their enemy; and 4) they're not afraid to use the media to "sell" their war to their Arab benefactors and other potential Muslim sympathizers while they paint the US and its Afghan puppets as "evil" and "anti-Muslim"...I could go on and on, but won't...
Bottom line, the Iranians bringing arms into Afghanistan and providing them to the Taliban should be the least of the Secretary of Defense's worries in regards to the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. Instead of the usual "ass and cake party" as my Australian friends so elloquently describe these VIP visits, I would much rather see Secretary Gates take some of those geniuses in his staff and put them to work on developing a military strategy that will ensure we win this counter-insurgency fight against the Taliban. The single point of failure in winning or losing won't be where the Taliban get their weapons from but whether they (Taliban) retain legitimacy among the population of Afghanistan, and on the flip side of that de-legitimize our efforts and those of our "puppet" Karazai government and military. We will continue to lose the IO and physical fight in Afghanistan because our culture does not recognize the roots of any problem. We simply attack the limbs and the leaves, and in the end the tap root remains protected in the soil only to grow again. Blaming Iran isn't going to win the fights in Iraq and Aghanistan, but rather success will come from within if we develop strategies that legitimize the existing governments in place. Those who would advocate "limited" attacks against Iran as a form of punishment are correctly assuming that "spanking" them is going to change their behavior. It will only inflame the already rampant anti-US sentiment in the Middle East and reinforce our enemy's IO message that we hate Islam and want to rule the world.
Why are people surprised that Iran is acting against U.S. interests?
In 1953, U.S. action installed an anti-Communist dictator (anti-Communist is not the same as pro-democracy). The Iranian popular understanding (right or wrong) was that the U.S. installed a puppet dictator. In 1978, the religious party in Iran staged a revolution, and deposed the Shah, and for the past 30+ years, their war cry has been "Death to U.S. and its Allies!" Anyone who did well under the Shah or thought well of the U.S. has either left, been killed, or has spent 30 years keeping thier opinions out of the public light. Oh yeah, the U.S. threw resources at the Iraqis for a decade of Iraqi war on Iran. (Yes, this is the simplified version, I've left out the British and Russian part of the story but we're discussing popular thought not rational thought.)
To them, the U.S. is the country that installs tyrants, supports Iran's enemies, and now has them surrounded (roughly two thirds of Iran's land borders currently have U.S. soldiers on the far side, and from two directions). If, in 1980, the Soviet Union had the presense in Canada and Mexico that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have done a lot more than just ship arms across borders.
Don't get me wrong, Ahm-a-nut-job and the rest of the current Iranian regime are a repressive, religious oligarchy that desparately need to be replaced. But, given their perceptions of the situation, their actions are understandable. Ahmadinejad and many others in Iran have a vision of Greater Iran based on Persia's political and cultural heritage, encompassing what Persia held at the height of its power, much like Milosevic's vision of a Greater Serbia. The problem with this vision is that folks in Greece, Turkey, and many other places will take exception, and although at its peak, Persia was remarkably sophisticated and advanced for its time, it was still a tyranny and it was over two thousand years ago.
Strategically, Iran is providing sanctuary to anyone in the region that they see opposing U.S. interests. Regarding the Taliban, the way to beat insurgents always starts by denying them sanctuary. An obvious countermeasure is to return the favor and provide sanctuary for any insurgents in Iran...
Moderator at Work
This is an old thread and rediscovered today. I have copied a number of recent posts here as they specifically relate to the topics, albeit the historical co-operation after 9/11.
davidbfpo
Iran’s Influence in Afghanistan After U.S. Pullout
A short primer which aims to answer:Nicely put:Has Iran's influence in Afghanistan changed since the U.S. troop surge in 2010? What steps has it taken in anticipation of the U.S. withdrawal planned for 2014?Link:http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013...ter-us-pulloutIran is probably not in favor of a Western-influenced , democratic, affluent Afghanistan, but at the same time, is concerned that an unstable, opium producing and radicalized Afghanistan can also pause a major threat to its interests, as experienced in the 1990s.
Finally, the author is a former Afghan Foreign MInister.
davidbfpo
When they were friends long ago
A historical post on Iran-US relations before the US Embassy hostages incident, in 1979, by a respected British-Iranian academic:The footnote refers to:Throughout 1979, and in stark contradiction to the narrative of mutual animosity, the US had began a series of intelligence briefings for the provisional government of Iran. These briefings were to be substantive and detailed. In late October US intelligence briefings warned the Iranians that Saddam Hussein was preparing for an invasion and that adequate measures needed to be taken to deter any attack. According to Mark Gasiorowski, the briefing was delivered on 15 October with a follow up on the 18th.[4] Two days later Carter took the decision to allow the Shah in for medical treatment. The rest, we might say, is history.The quote comes as the final paragraph in a review of the film 'Argo':http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment.../#.US5bseuAuXT[4] For more details on this fascinating part of US-Iran relations see Mark Gasiorowski's excellent article, US Intelligence Assistance to Iran, May-October 1979, Middle East Journal, Fall 2012.
davidbfpo
Iran, the Northern Alliance and the USA
Taken from a comment on SWJ by Mark Pyruz:Link to cited book, published January 2013, with many good reviews:http://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-U...pr_product_top.... the example of successfully supporting the Northern Alliance is the critical role the Islamic Republic of Iran played in uniting the NA in its acceptance of U.S. terms for that support. The Iranians put themselves forward in the hopes of improving relations with the U.S., cooperating with American efforts during the initial stages of OEF and delivering their principal ally in Afghanistan, the NA, in the fight against the Taliban. However, after success was achieved, President Bush 'rewarded' Iran as being part of an "Axis of Evil" .
Former national security officials in the Bush Administration Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett write at length about this in their new book "Going to Tehran". The book also provides an empathetic rendering of Iran's national security and geopolitical outlook that's right on the mark and pretty much unavailable anywhere else in such detail. Well worth the read.
Link to SWJ article - on other matters:http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...ns-for-success
Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-28-2013 at 07:15 PM.
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks