Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

[Fuchs]

You may find the needle, but meanwhile another two or three were thrown into the haystack and you cannot win this without burning everything down.


You sound like some Clancy fans who think a tank's purpose is to be invulnerable. Of course you cane eventually score against the enemy. No enemy is invulnerable (not even in supposedly safe havens). That's not strategically necessary, decisive or even only important, though.


The U.S. never had something like the R.A.F., but the example may still help you understand:

The R.A.F. had a supportive base of a few thousand symphatisers. It had a few dozen murderers/robbers/kidnappers. The latter were able to hide, survive and replace their losses thanks to the supportive base for decades.
Some of them retired into East Germany for a physical sanctuary, but those effectively retired, because the East Germans didn't allow them to return.

The thing that eventually defeated the R.A.F. was not the headhunt, but the fact that the supportive base god disillusioned and separated and eventually the movement faltered because there was neither motivation left nor the infrastructure for ambitious actions any more.
Without that, we could have headhunted for decades without winning the fight. A physical sanctuary was not necessary; the core of the supportive base and illegal income (bank robberies and such) sustained the violent few well within our own population.


The safe haven / sanctuary thing is a strange fixation of U.S. COIN folks - and it's badly misleading because there's always some sanctuary left, but the fight is being lost hundreds of miles away from physical sanctuaries as well. The are obviously not the key to TB success or survival.

[Ken White]

Physical sanctuaries are important. It is much easier to stay alive when there is someplace to run to where the people hunting you can't physically go.

Not really much easier, just less stressful.. The flip side is time and effort lost moving from operating area to 'sanctuary' plus the increased logistic burden and the potential for attack while moving to and fro-- and one must always wonder how long the opponent will allow it to remain a sanctuary.

That seems self evident.

A large number of things that may seem self evident at first glance are not -- once some thought is given them...

The trigger pullers are important and they can stay alive longer if they have access to a physical sanctuary.

They aren't that important and generally are easily replaceable. Plus, if such a sanctuary exists, the nominal leaders tend to operate almost exclusively from that safe haven -- which creates trigger puller morale problems. Then there's the problem of the lad who gets to that safe haven after a few fights and elects not to return to the arena...

It's a set of trade offs. Like everything else.

[carl]

I still disagree. Physical sanctuary in the sense that Pakistan is a physical sanctuary for the Taliban is important. It is not only less stressful for a Talibani to stay alive there it is physically easier because he won't be hunted by ground troops there; not only easier but almost gaurenteed (sic). Drones may be around but there really aren't that many of them and they go after the bigger guys. There is extra time and effort involved in going to and fro but that is counterbalanced by the ability not to get kilt in the sanctuary. Time is not that important anyway for those guys. They got years and years. You do have to wonder how long the sanctuary will remain so, but given our record it will be indefinitely. Even if it stopped being one they gain the advantage for however long it does last. That is of value if they will win during that time.

The high mucky mucks have been in Pakistan for 10 years and their presence there hasn't seemed to cause many morale problems so far. If some of the trigger pullers decide to stay in Pakistan that isn't much different than if they decide to stay home in Afghanistan. Either way they aren't available. From what I know those guys drift in and out of the ranks all the time anyway, especially the lower down guys. I think it would be especially useful for low and mid level leaders to have a place safe from the hunters. Their positions are stressful.

I don't think the RAF has much application. They were a tiny group. It is easy to hide a tiny group. We have had things like that here, not as murderous but just as hard to hunt down because of sympathizers. A big group like Taliban & co. needs a physical sanctuary, especially for the big leaders. They wouldn't operate there unless they had to to stay alive.

It is a set of trade offs, but I just don't see how having a physical sanctuary isn't critically important for Taliban & Co. Sanctuary may be a fixation for small wars people, but it is a fixation for small wars people on both sides. If it wasn't important for the insurgents why would they be so set on using them? I don't think it is so strange.

[Ray]

You're too stuck in thinking about sanctuaries and kills.

The supporting base are the villages where TB can move in, drink a tea and not get reported, but even be able to get some supplies and a bed for the night.
It's not something you deal with with drones and Hellfires.

The military reach is irrelevant. A whole infantry company can sweep that village and the next day the village wills till be part of the supportive base of TBs.
It's political.


And the support base is as much a legitimate target as it would have been legitimate if Germany had killed 30-80% of French civilians in '43 because of the Resistance.
No, they are not a legitimate target for deadly violence. The maximum justifiable violence would be a forced deportation.

Indeed I am too stuck in the groove of sanctuaries and kill.

That I found was the crux to the issue, having also been on the high level parleys at the political level too, as also being on the ground level. Too much of theory at the political and totally devoid of the reality. Good chaps and wonderful thoughts but no way to get results.

I am not suggesting the Sri Lankan mode. It is inhuman. What I am suggesting is a cognizable military success on which the a political solution can be constructed.

I would be immensely surprised to find people beyond law and reason like the terrorists coming to the negotiation table when they are riding the crest of success. Don't take my word for it, you should have asked Mao when he was alive or you still have the chance, ask Castro!

If you have read my post carefully, you would find you are echoing my thoughts that The supporting base are the villages where TB can move in, drink a tea and not get reported, but even be able to get some supplies and a bed for the night.

It's not something you deal with with drones and Hellfires.

But where I disagree is your contention - The military reach is irrelevant. A whole infantry company can sweep that village and the next day the village wills till be part of the supportive base of TBs.
It's political.

Sanitising an area and even a whole province and having it registered as a failure of the terrorist is a MUST to bring the Taliban to the table for talks. A victorious lot does not come to the negotiation table.

Since you bring in if Germany had killed 30-80% of French civilians in '43 because of the Resistance may I remind you of The Treaty of Versailles? It should ring a bell, where even an unjust Treaty was meekly endorsed by the vanquished.

May I also remind you that Chamberlain, the British PM, with all his goodness, failed politically to bring Hitler to the negotiating table and Winston Churchill, the horrible man, made mincemeat of Hitler through wily political alliances and sheer brute force?

Politics without worthwhile military action is chasing the will o' the wisp!

The attack on Abbotabad has removed OBL which no political parley would achieve.

Who knows that is a starter towards the negotiating table. If not, some more would see the light of day till it works out.

I am not a Clancey fan. If only I had his trait of story telling, I would have been a millionaire since I have 'been there and done that' and each activity is a thrilling story by itself!

[Ray]

Not really much easier, just less stressful.. The flip side is time and effort lost moving from operating area to 'sanctuary' plus the increased logistic burden and the potential for attack while moving to and fro-- and one must always wonder how long the opponent will allow it to remain a sanctuary.A large number of things that may seem self evident at first glance are not -- once some thought is given them...They aren't that important and generally are easily replaceable. Plus, if such a sanctuary exists, the nominal leaders tend to operate almost exclusively from that safe haven -- which creates trigger puller morale problems. Then there's the problem of the lad who gets to that safe haven after a few fights and elects not to return to the arena...

It's a set of trade offs. Like everything else.

Anyone who has done a long trek in the mountains with heavy battle load and gone through a few skirmishes will understand what a 'break' (forget about sanctuaries) mean.

One does not go back to base (sanctuaries) after every action. Therefore, the issue of logistics is redundant. One does a tenure and hangs around in local sanctuaries for the next actions, having been replenished. That is how the terrorist operate in Kashmir. Therefore, the danger of moving from a base and carrying out an operation and then returning to safe sanctuaries across the border is imaginary.

The terrorists operating in Kashmir are on a one year tenure and they are paid a King's ransom for the same. They are logistically topped up from across the border at their local sanctuaries and so can carry on with their activities. I daresay the Taliban, who are of the same genre, are any different in their modus operandi.

It would be unbelievable that anyone, be they terrorists or otherwise, do not require to rest, refit and reorganise. Obviously, it cannot be done in 'enemy' territory. Therefore, after a longish stint, they have to touch base at their sanctuaries which cannot be 'touched' without raising international concern of violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty.

For the Taliban, the KP area is ideal.

That is why the US Drones operate there and Pakistan complain of violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Drones cannot target all areas and that is obvious.

[JMA]

The terrorists operating in Kashmir are on a one year tenure and they are paid a King's ransom for the same. They are logistically topped up from across the border at their local sanctuaries and so can carry on with their activities. I daresay the Taliban, who are of the same genre, are any different in their modus operandi.

This payment business tends to depreciate the claim of their being patriots fighting for freedom and other good things. These hired guns are more mercenaries and less insurgents and should be treated as such.

Their sanctuaries have got to be targets of that there is no doubt. The problem with the drone activities is that it is a slow drip of humiliation for Pakistan at their having to explain why the US are free to attack targets in their country and why they have so little control over large areas of their country. The problem is that these clowns have got the Bomb.

The Afghans are not worth fighting for, but maybe the location of Afghanistan has certain strategic considerations. Get out ASAP and the lesson learned should be how punishing the Taliban (for providing sanctuary to AQ) grew into this Nation Building crap at a cost of too many lives and a lot of cash. The other lesson is that the armies that rolled Saddam's forces up with ease in Operation Iraqi Freedom had little or no idea how to fight an insurgency. Some hard lessons where learned along the road from then until today.

[Fuchs]

May I also remind you that Chamberlain, the British PM, with all his goodness, failed politically to bring Hitler to the negotiating table and Winston Churchill, the horrible man, made mincemeat of Hitler through wily political alliances and sheer brute force?

Hitler wasn't the supporting base, but the head.

Britain' time to convince a German supportive base to play nicely was in 1919-1932 when it was able to negotiate and deliver foreign political successes to Social democrats and thus keep the far right nutcases from power.

Later on, 1933-1945, the supportive base was too much in the grip of force.
It might still have helped not to ask for unconditional surrender in 1943, for this could have meant everything including national slavery in Siberia.

The attack on Abbotabad has removed OBL which no political parley would achieve.

Really? I think it would have been interesting to offer the continued existence of Islamabad for UBL's head.


A huge arms deal package at discount prices (worth 300 bn+, price 100 bn+) for India would also have been a good argument.
Instead, the U.S. government bribed directly and was content with almost no returns.

[Ray]

This payment business tends to depreciate the claim of their being patriots fighting for freedom and other good things. These hired guns are more mercenaries and less insurgents and should be treated as such.

When I was there, the radio transcripts indicated that the tenure was for one year and the bounty was Rs 2,00,000. That may not appear much in $, but it is a King's Ransom in these parts.

Also, chaps on death row, were given the option of clemency if they volunteered for a tenure as a terrorist in Kashmir.

Some were dedicated to the Islamic cause but most of them were mere mercenaries.

Interestingly, the Tanzeem (Group) Leader would, at times, pocket a part of the money given for refurbishing the Tanzeem and for other necessities or the payment for the dead and there was a lot of grouse over that.

Their sanctuaries have got to be targets of that there is no doubt. The problem with the drone activities is that it is a slow drip of humiliation for Pakistan at their having to explain why the US are free to attack targets in their country and why they have so little control over large areas of their country. The problem is that these clowns have got the Bomb.

It is true the Drone attacks have their value from the standpoint you have mentioned.

It is true that Pakistan has the Bomb, but it will be the day they use it on the US. They may appear a trifle silly, but then they are not totally stupid is what I would say.

As it is the US special forces are undertaking raid into KP.

The Afghans are not worth fighting for, but maybe the location of Afghanistan has certain strategic considerations. Get out ASAP and the lesson learned should be how punishing the Taliban (for providing sanctuary to AQ) grew into this Nation Building crap at a cost of too many lives and a lot of cash. The other lesson is that the armies that rolled Saddam's forces up with ease in Operation Iraqi Freedom had little or no idea how to fight an insurgency. Some hard lessons where learned along the road from then until today.

It is not the Afghans that is in the consideration.

It is the location which is important from the US' geostrategic standpoint. It sits close to the underbelly of Russia and prevents Russian influence into Afghanistan and thence into Iran, with which Russia is quite chummy. Likewise, it also allows a peek into China and the Uyghurs.

That apart, it also overlook the South Asian hotbed.

I seriously think that all the brouhaha over spreading "Freedom and Democracy" (which in any case is a bogus reason) is any reason to unleash a war. It is mere smokescreen for the strategic intent, which I think, was valid given the Cold War realities and compulsions and so the foray into Afghanistan. It is another matter that the US has found itself stuck.

From the results observed in the open forum, it does appear that the US is not well versed in COIN. It requires patience and less of gung ho stuff (product of SLA Marshall's theories). No one likes a foreigner bossing around who expects all to cringe and crawl and be eternally grateful. On the other hand compare the British imperialism in India, where a handful could keep a huge mass under control. But then one is not here to recount history and the rationale.

Take the case of Bush. Gung ho and no Osama!

Take the case of Obama. Bumbling around as it appeared, weak and all that, but patiently went through the steps. Result = Osama killed.

Patience.

Speak softly but carry a Big Stick as the US President Roosevelt had said.

If one looks at the Indian experience, one can see there is hardly any insurgency in the NE of India, which was once an hotbed. Currently, the separatism in Kashmir is in disarray. The terrorists killed one of the leader who was advocating dialogue and that has cause disharmony amongst their ranks.

One of the reasons why the Pakistani sponsored terrorists in Kashmir or the Chinese sponsored ones in the NE has not been able to make headway is that their areas of operations have been sanitised, by having troops on the border (hence a much less of them can ingress) and those who ingress are taken on by the second line of mobile elements on search and destroy.

Patience is required and there is no instant quick fixes.

[Ray]

Hitler wasn't the supporting base, but the head.

Britain' time to convince a German supportive base to play nicely was in 1919-1932 when it was able to negotiate and deliver foreign political successes to Social democrats and thus keep the far right nutcases from power.

Later on, 1933-1945, the supportive base was too much in the grip of force.
It might still have helped not to ask for unconditional surrender in 1943, for this could have meant everything including national slavery in Siberia.



Really? I think it would have been interesting to offer the continued existence of Islamabad for UBL's head.


A huge arms deal package at discount prices (worth 300 bn+, price 100 bn+) for India would also have been a good argument.
Instead, the U.S. government bribed directly and was content with almost no returns.

Chamberlain was addressing the head = the political aspect. And failed.

When Britain addressed the base = Germany = the base. They won!

I think you are not paying heed to what is being said in Washington over the Abbotabad raid and planning. They are saying that Pakistan was kept out of the loop since Pakistan leaks like a sieve and OBL would have been alerted.

If indeed, as you suggest, that there should have been political solution to OBL, well then, we would still be roaming round and round like Tony Lumpkin.

You make a mistake. India is not Pakistan. Our govt is responsible to the people and such a 'bribe' would have brought the Govt down. And our Army is subservient to the civilian Govt and has no role in the political environment or governance of the country.
As it is, it (the Indian Govt) was shaky with that dubious deal over the Nuclear Agreement and now with the Japanese nuclear disaster, the Govt does not know where to hide.

Now, what was the bribe the US gave directly to India?

Even the US aircraft offered was way high in cost for India compared to the price sold to Australia. Hence, India said no way!

[jmm99]

Yes.

In support of said answer, we had a discussion nearly two years ago - e.g., some posts in it:

BW: What would "moderate" look like...

jmm99: What would "moderate" look like... part 1 and What would "moderate" look like... part 2

We could today be discussing the very same issues without substantial changes in what is expressed - and in fact we are !

We (US) have various open-source (and perhaps classified) "partnership agreements" with the GoA (initiated in the Bush administration and confirmed early on in the Obama administation). Based on the open-source documents, these are legally Presidential Executive Agreements; and could be legally terminated by the US.

With respect to the region (South Asia), I'd like to see all US military forces withdrawn - you all know my boundary lines; and that "Never Again" has a "but..." attached to it. One "but" could be direct actions of the type we have just witnessed.

Further with respect to the projection of non-military US capabilities, we would continue and rely on:

1. Diplomatic under DoS.

2. USIA - yup, good old agitprop under an agency independent of State.

3. USAID - yup, good old focused on local developmental liaison (tied into US trade and commerce) under an agency independent of State.

4. Peace Corps

5. Intelligence (Gathering and Analysis) - You decide on the organizational setup.

Not very isolationist, but it would be as non-interventionist as possible.

The key concept would be to move away from "partnership agreements" (and the "dammit, we made a contract" mentality) and into personal, emotional relationships with the people of South Asia.

Since I'm not "touchy feely", it ain't that - or close to that. What I'm talking about is mutual respect and communication based on shared, enlightened self-interests.

So, "Who [and Where] is John Galt?"

Regards

Mike

PS: Ray, sometimes I change my mind - temporarily hanging my Nehru jacket on the shelf (ha, ha).

[Ray]

Mike,

Your ideas are perfect.

However, it is too late in the day to abandon the gains to include the strategic one.

I chanced upon this link and it traces historically the importance of Afghanistan and what it will if the US quits.

http://cinemarasik.com/2009/10/10/af...o-america.aspx

Excerpt:

Chance Favors The Prepared Mind

The Chinese Leaders are masters of the Prepared Mind concept. China would not have risked going to war with India in 1950s to annex Tibet. But India's prime minister Nehru, is an act of historical stupidity, unilaterally pulled the Indian Army out of Tibet. The Chinese were prepared and they walked in.

The Chinese are also determined and ambitious. Tibet is gone virtually forever. There is no way China will give it up. Tibet is strategically crucial to China. It provides direct land access to Xinjiang for Eastern China. It gives China control of the top of the world and a direct access to Kashmir.

America, frankly, lucked out in Afghanistan. The 2001 attacks allowed America the moral ground to remove the Taleban regime in Afghanistan. Now, America is in control of this vital strategic asset, this gateway between Central Asia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India. It boggles our mind that reasonably patriotic Americans can even consider leaving Afghanistan for the next 10-15 years.

Today, Afghanistan is the land nexus of the World, the World of nearly 3.5 billion people with growing incomes and rising aspirations. America lucked into this nexus position. The question is whether the American mind is prepared to seize this chance the way China did with Tibet.

Unlike Iraq in 2006, this World wants America to stay in Afghanistan. This is of course the real World - India, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, the Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan.

The only regime that does not want America to stay in Afghanistan is the Pakistani Army and the ISI, the Army's Intelligence service. Notice we do not say Pakistan, the country. Because, the Pakistani people will leave peacefully if American pacifies Afghanistan. But as they say in Pakistan, the Pakistani Army owns the country and not the other way around.

If America runs away from Afghanistan, it will never be allowed in again. The game for Afghanistan will begin again, this time with China, Pakistan, India & Iran. We would favor the China-Pakistan axis to win this prize. What is the prize? Central Asia, access to the Persian Gulf and Trade with 3.5 billion people.

If you don't believe us, look at the maps again.

Read the full article. It is interesting.

[Fuchs]

@Ray; you don't seem to have understood what I meant with the India deal.
I meant to address the one Pakistani interest that totally overrides whatever interest they have in TB and AQ: India's ability to invade Pakistan.

Threaten to push India into such heights of military power that Pakistan would be hopeless and Pakistan would be forced to do just about everything because this touches their core vital interest with a glowing axe.

Bribing Pakistan invited them to play you - threaten them indirectly at their core interest and they'll #### their pants. Even the ISI's vital interest would be hit.

There would not need to be any arms deal. Just the credible threat.

[Fuchs]

Today, Afghanistan is the land nexus of the World, the World of nearly 3.5 billion people with growing incomes and rising aspirations. America lucked into this nexus position. The question is whether the American mind is prepared to seize this chance the way China did with Tibet.

What a piece of crap.
The most crucial geostrategic spot on earth is Turkey, not a unusable land in Central Asia.

To have AFG means nothing. Even the Philippines are more geostrategically relevant than AFG.


Tell me one influence that could be exerted out of AFG in your nations' advantage (benefit minus cost !!!) that wouldn't be available otherwise.


Tibet is also rather useless. China has nothing to gain from hostility with India but some useless patches of rather barren land. The most interesting thing Tibet does is to distort the Chinese population density statistic.

[Ray]

@Ray; you don't seem to have understood what I meant with the India deal.
I meant to address the one Pakistani interest that totally overrides whatever interest they have in TB and AQ: India's ability to invade Pakistan.

Threaten to push India into such heights of military power that Pakistan would be hopeless and Pakistan would be forced to do just about everything because this touches their core vital interest with a glowing axe.

Bribing Pakistan invited them to play you - threaten them indirectly at their core interest and they'll #### their pants. Even the ISI's vital interest would be hit.

There would not need to be any arms deal. Just the credible threat.

Maybe.

I am not being rude, but are you even aware of the restrictions that the US wants to impose on arms that they SELL to India?

With due humility I will state that India is not a tinpot democracy like some in the neighbourhood that will sell itself. For your information, India has rejected US Arms and weapons platforms.

It is important to note that we are BUYING and paying for it with hard Cash and we are not in the game to SELL OUR SOULS.

May I request that you would do well to research before you post.


Don't forget that China has great stakes in Pakistan to keep India occupied since China sincerely believes that India can upset their apple cart in Tibet with none the wiser.

[Ray]

What a piece of crap.
The most crucial geostrategic spot on earth is Turkey, not a unusable land in Central Asia.

To have AFG means nothing. Even the Philippines are more geostrategically relevant than AFG.


Tell me one influence that could be exerted out of AFG in your nations' advantage (benefit minus cost !!!) that wouldn't be available otherwise.


Tibet is also rather useless. China has nothing to gain from hostility with India but some useless patches of rather barren land. The most interesting thing Tibet does is to distort the Chinese population density statistic.

From the Western standpoint, of course it is crap.

However, every action taken from the Western standpoint beyond Europe, has turned out to be total failure and has bogged the West with an Albatross around the Neck!

So, this 'crap' is subjective at best!

Again viewing Tibet as useless is myopic.

Are you aware of the untapped mineral resources in Afghanistan, Xinjiang and Tibet? In a resource dwindling world, it will matter, if not today, at least in the near future. Then you will be crying over spilt milk!! Look beyond into the future and not merely to save your bacon today!

Turkey? How so?

It is time to look at the world without the old 'imperialist Europe' eyeglass!

The centre of gravity has moved East.

Sooner it is realised, it will help to maintain West's supremacy!

[Fuchs]

The centre of gravity is the earth core.

There's no geostrategic centre of gravity, just especially interesting spots/regions.


On Turkey:

Connector between Arab world, Persians, CIS

Controls Bosporus

In strike range of Suez Canal.

Political connector between orient and occident and not fully joined with any bloc.

Still a NATO member and thus able to veto all major NATO actions.

Good infrastructure (harbours, roads and rail lines that can actually support a major force - unlike Afghanistan).

Easily accessible.

Substantial economy and good growth. Substantial military force (especially in terms of quantity).

---
Meanwhile, AFG is separated from India, borders minimally to the empty end of China and borders on notoriously unreliable Central Asian CIS powers, but not Russia itself.The closest Russian areas are de facto empty. AFG is easily contained because of its land-locked status both land and air, while it has no port whatsoever. Its national infrastructure supports almost nothing. Its economy supports barely itself. AFG is not clearly and strongly involved in anything; it's not allied with any relevant bloc (unless you insist on allying with it) and provides no lever anywhere.

It's a strategically useless piece o c and I lose respect for people who think it's especially valuable in geostrategic terms.

---

Now about supremacy; that's a piece o c as well. Seriously, supremacy is useless. Luxembourg is a nicer place to live than the U.S..
The thirst for power knows no limits in undisciplined minds, though.

[Ray]

Your theory on Turkey being the centre of gravity does not gel.

Connector between Arab world, Persians, CIS

Are they threats to the West?

Iran is closer to CIS from the CAR and Afghanistan

Controls Bosporus

What is important to the West? Bosporus or Hormuz? Hormuz controls 60% of the world's oil movement.

If CIS is in Afghanistan it is closer since Russia has good ties with Iran. What stops Russia using Iranian ports if Russia adopts a confrontationist stance with the West, having developed Afghanistan as a sphere of influence?

In strike range of Suez Canal.

What is its relevance to the world - the real world in the East?

Political connector between orient and occident and not fully joined with any bloc.

An ancient mindset that hovers around the West as the centre of the world!!

Still a NATO member and thus able to veto all major NATO actions.


NATO is an irrelevance that is being tolerated. It has lost its meaning after the Cold War. They can't even agree to disagree.

Good infrastructure (harbours, roads and rail lines that can actually support a major force - unlike Afghanistan).

Are you aware of the development being undertaken?

[jmm99]

The suggested article did not move me in the least - except for its use of the "Great Game" terminology. It is not our (US) "Great Game", as far as I am concerned.

The article BTW makes the assertion that:

It boggles our mind that reasonably patriotic Americans can even consider leaving Afghanistan for the next 10-15 years.

So, according to that assertion, I am not a "reasonably patriotic American". To that assertion and similar assertions (note the attack on the message), I say what I have said during and since Vietnam - FOAD.

Just to make it clear, Ray, my message to the "assertion" is definitely not directed at you. You just provided the link and may well have not even realized the impact (on such as me and my ilk) of the pathetic "reasonably patriotic American" piece of cant by the website's author. Them's fighting words in my little neck of the woods.

Here's a point from the article:

Unlike Iraq in 2006, this World wants America to stay in Afghanistan. This is of course the real World - India, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, the Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan.

So, let the "Real World" (sans USA) duly occupy Astan and they all can exploit it. And, if they can't put together an "international mandate" (isn't the Middle East of post-WWI, just such a wonderful example - that's being sarcastic, folks), let them fight, etc., etc.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

Your theory on Turkey being the centre of gravity does not gel.

A kitten died.

Connector between Arab world, Persians, CIS

Are they threats to the West?

Surprise: Geostrategy is about influence, not only about threats.
Best answer to hostiles in a distant region is to stay away from them.

Iran is closer to CIS from the CAR and Afghanistan

So what? Turkey is a neighbour of Iran just like Afghanistan.

Controls Bosporus

What is important to the West? Bosporus or Hormuz? Hormuz controls 60% of the world's oil movement.

Maybe, but Turkey controls Bosporus, Afghanistan isn't even close to a maritime bottleneck at all.

Turkey: score +1, AFG score +0.

If CIS is in Afghanistan it is closer since Russia has good ties with Iran. What stops Russia using Iranian ports if Russia adopts a confrontationist stance with the West, having developed Afghanistan as a sphere of influence?

Nothing, a few isolated soldiers and diplomats would have no influence whatsoever on Russia using Iranian ports. Russian brain cells would, though. Russia has nothing to gain whatsoever from such a move and its ports are freakishly far away from Iranian Persian Gulf ports and half the Russian navy would break down before it reached any of those.

In strike range of Suez Canal.

What is its relevance to the world - the real world in the East?

Oh, wow. First it was "Old Europe and New Europe, now the whole West is unimportant?
Hint: Afghanistan is in strike range of nothing of relevance at all. Again score +1 Turkey, nothing AFG.

Political connector between orient and occident and not fully joined with any bloc.

An ancient mindset that hovers around the West as the centre of the world!!

Hardly, it's rather a description of the shism between two cultural regions. This shism has been fortified by separate economic development and the description is still useful to describe that the two regions are different.
Turkey is relevant to both - especially politically, but also as the only halfway realistic in-between country.

Still a NATO member and thus able to veto all major NATO actions.


NATO is an irrelevance that is being tolerated. It has lost its meaning after the Cold War. They can't even agree to disagree.

It's not a readily available and willing pool of slavish auxiliary army troops that Americans want it to be, but it's extremely important as a security guarantee for dozens of countries and pacifying a historically extremely warlike continent.
A member like Turkey has great influence on whether NATO stays such a stabiliser or whether it becomes a military adventure club.

In fact, you argued involuntarily for Turkey's importance, for Turkey is part of the reason why NATO didn't agree so easily recently. Again Turkey score +1, Afghanistan +0.

Good infrastructure (harbours, roads and rail lines that can actually support a major force - unlike Afghanistan).

Are you aware of the development being undertaken?

Yeah, show me the military air bases, the huge civilian and government stocks of fuel and food, show me the civilian communication infrastructure, show me the modern ports, show me the two-way rail lines.
Istanbul has by itself more relevant infrastructure than all of Afghanistan.
Turkey +1, AFG +0.001.

[carl]

Fuchs:

This is just one little point but which is closer to India, China, Indonesia, Thailand and the eastern central Asian 'stans? Afghanistan is. And which countries are likely to be more important in the next 50 years, the countries named above, or Hungary and the Crimea? In my view the countries in the east. Afghanistan is well located.

What does a kitten died mean?