sorry for my ignorance.. but

how long with the U.S. be staying in Afghanistan? And, would Afghanistan be considered more dangerous than Iraq?

I'll address your question about the danger in Afghanistan, based on my experience. The answer is, it depends. What part of the country are we talking about, and what is the person's job? There are large portions of the country that are somewhat secure, where coalition deaths are somewhat infrequent. There are also a lot of folks over there who stay inside a base for their entire deployment. There can be occasional rocket attacks anywhere, but those guys are generally pretty safe.

I don't know anyone still over there, but am curious with all the hubbub about the military being out of Iraq and we still have troops in Afghanistan.

So I'm concerned about those still over there or heading over there, curious about our timetable there as well and possible casualties we might still see.

I realize that the U.S. is all over the world and at any given time anything can happen, (even in the U.S., i.e., the Washington training crash) but will the Iraq portion over, what might we still expect.

What are the main differences in the objectives and experiences between Iraq and Afghanistan. The average person (me) kinda saw them as similar/the same situations, and I'm sure that's not true...

Hope that makes sense...



[This message has been edited by annie88 (edited 12/19/2011 2:46p).]

One good thumbnail explanation I heard for the technological and cultural differences between Iraq and Afghanistan is "about 200 years." Iraq was in many places a fairly advanced and modern country. They have lots of paved roads, highways, bridges, and decent agricultural techniques. The have had schools and universities for a long time. They have television and radio networks and use of the internet and mobile phones. Afghanistan by contrast has almost no paved roads, no significant broadcast networks or cell phone communication outside of Kabul and the other 'major' cities. The rural population lives in isolation not only from the modern world and western influences but isolated from virtually everyone more than a day's walk or bumpy truck ride from their house. They have no interest in the wonders of modern technology because its benefits are an unproven hypothesis to them. What they have seen of modern technology in the hinterlands is all used in the context of warfare with a few instances of almost magical cures for intractable diseases.

Geographically the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan could be visualized the difference between Kansas or the Texas Panhandle is Jackson Hole Wyoming (without roads of course). Afghanistan is what is referred to as a compartmentalized battlespace. But for the assistance that can be flown in, dropped from the air, or fired from a cannon a unit in contact with the Taliban out on the frontier might as well be on the moon relative to the rest of the army. A compartmentalized battlespace makes it very different to put mass and firepower against the enemy. He attacks obliquely to inflict many demoralizing losses at the small unit level while depriving the coalition forces of the ability to respond in kind.

It's a really hard nut to crack and the value of cracking it is, like the blessings of modern technology are to the Afghans, still hypothesized and not yet proven.

As of 1300 today, my ARNG unit and some OK ARNG units are still on to backfill a medevac mission to Afghanistan in 2012.

So if you are asking about the drawdown in Iraq vs. Afghanistan - they haven't canceled that mission yet.

[This message has been edited by TXAGChick06 (edited 12/19/2011 4:10p).]

thanks guys, and a bit more. what are we trying to do in Afghanistan? Mostly aid? Are we trying to stave off attacks on them? Helping their government?

sorry again for my ignorance, I really should know more about it...

quote:

---

medevac mission

---

just reread and saw this comment, so mostly an aid initiative?





[This message has been edited by annie88 (edited 12/19/2011 4:16p).]

quote:

---

what are we trying to do in Afghanistan? Mostly aid? Are we trying to stave off attacks on them?

---

We successfully overthrew the Taliban almost 10 years ago. However, the 'freely elected' Afghan government had no truly qualified candidates to lead the nation. Partly that's because it's not a nation but a geographically grouped grab bag of warring tribes that hate each other. We are now stuck trying to prop up a weak, corrupt, and pathetically inept Pashtun President who is not trusted by the majority of the country and has failed to deliver on even the simplest of promises to curb the unbelievable levels of corruption among his government officials. From what I have read and heard related from embedded transition team members (no first hand experience), the normal levle of corruption in Afghani government makes Mexico look like Canada by comparison.

At times I wonder if the next step is not a ceding of power in Afghanistan the way that Ngo Dinh Diem departed the stage in South Vietnam. The US did not assassinate Diem but they allowed it to happen because reforming his behavior was hopeless. However, the next step after Diem's demise was not a US withdrawal so that's not a historical template that would chart a path to success but Karzai is a hopeless who does not care how many US soldiers die to keep him ensconced as president..

[This message has been edited by Ulysses90 (edited 12/19/2011 4:29p).]

Thanks U90, explains a bit more to me...

U90 as I was reading your description, I kept on thinking to myself "Self, why does that sound familiar?". Afghanistan has been the ******* stepchild for too long while we were embroiled in Iraq. If we had done nine years ago what we are doing now instead of going into Iraq, IMO things would be much different now. Granted we didn't know then (up for debate) what we know now concerning WMDs in Iraq.

quote:

---

If we had done nine years ago what we are doing now instead of going into Iraq, IMO things would be much different now. Granted we didn't know then (up for debate) what we know now concerning WMDs in Iraq.

---

I tend to disagree with this. The original strategy in Afghanistan was a light footprint approach. We realized what a bloody, expensive disaster it would be to send in 100,000 troops, and the strategic benefit of a marginally more stable Afghan government wasn't worth that cost. This administration obviously disagrees with that approach, and tripled troop strength.

After my tour spent working with senior Afghan officials, I agree with Tom Friedman (NY Times Opinion Page columnist) that there are 4 possible results in Afghanistan: 1) we lose big, 2) we lose small, 3) we lose quick, and 4) we lose slow. We're chosing to lose big and slow - meaning we're investing more and more into the conflict for a longer and longer period of time, but even the best case scenario imaginable in Afghanistan doesn't resemble victory.

We also realized early on that the light footprint was not sustainable as we ventured out of the stongholds. The trip to Iraq and the double down over there prevented that. It was a conscious decision, and yes Astan was the sideshow.

quote:

---

If we had done nine years ago what we are doing now instead of going into Iraq, IMO things would be much different now.

---

I don't believe that it would have changed that much. The allocation of more troops in Afghanistan would not change the geographic and cultural challenges that makes Afghanistan an intractable problem. We were, then as now, dealing with Karzai's corruption and ineptitude. The Taliban we are fighting today are almost a reincarnation of those that were badly beaten and driven out in 2001-2002. They were reborn in Pakistan with resources that we provided to the Pakistani government.

Even without the benefit of hindsight on Iraq I don't believe that the objectives for Afghanistan were realistic in 2002 given the amount of resources that the US was willing to commit. Every optimistic prediction for a satisfactory outcome in Afghanistan is predicated on strong local economies supported by free trade through the region. The United States never dreamed of supplying the resources that it would take to achieve that. Apart from the cultural divide it would equate to a road building program in Afghanistan that would be their version of the Eisenhower interstate highway system. The biggest shortfalls in resources to accomplish the mission are not military but economic and diplomatic. The dearth of state department personnel outside of Kabul and economic development assistance in the hinterland is as big an obstacle to a stable government as is the Taliban. Fifty years from now the vast majority of Afghans will still be living in the dark without electricity or phones, commuting on foot, and killing anyone stupid enough to go there and try and drag them into modernity.

I have no claim to being an expert on counterinsurgency or war planning but I just can't see a positive long term strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that does not equate to quarantining the infection and letting it run its course.

If you're interested, you might want to actually go to the ISAF webpage for the facts. Not that anybody here is off the mark but I would start with facts before letting other opinions form my own. ISAF has a mission statement and strategic vision in their official texts. http://www.isaf.nato.int/

For the record, Karzai has said that he WILL NOT run for president again in 2014. Ulysses90, I respectfully disagree on your Taliban assertion. They are quite different than that which we faced 10 years ago. Also, remember, "The Taliban" is a general term used, it is not some overarching monolithic group.

For you posters still over there...Stay Safe! And thanks for your service.

quote:

---

I respectfully disagree on your Taliban assertion. They are quite different than that which we faced 10 years ago. Also, remember,

---

You are correct. Reincarnation was the wrong word and did not convey what I wanted to say. An "undead cousin" of the original Taliban might be a better term. I see the Taliban of today as sort of the evolution of the Viet Minh to the Viet Cong.

What they are is a pain in my ass!









We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well, and live!

I have to agree with AgLaw. Based on my experience it all depends on what part of the country you're located. And yes some people never see the outside of the bases that are currently set up, which tend to be pretty safe.

Reminds Bop of a WWII story coming out of North Africa.

After American troops had been in-country for ah couple of years, some of our guys (who arrived first) noticed Arab females now walking in front of their husband as he sat on his donkey.

Initial thoughts were this was some form of American influence and a sign of women's lib (since, on the American's first arrival, Arab wives always walked behind the husband and his donkey).

Come to learn wives were now human mine detectors for...husband & donkey.

[This message has been edited by BeBopAg (edited 1/4/2012 1:35p).]

Having served in both theaters in an infantry role gave me quite a perspective on the differences of both countries.

I served in Iraq most of 2007 in the greater Falluja area during the major sectarian violence in arguably the most volatile yr there. Then I did a tour to Helmand, Afghaniland in mid 2008, arguably the most volatile spot and timeframe there as well.

My thoughts on the matter? Iraq was no joke. Everyone was pretty much out to kill us and we got quite a bit of trigger time in. The political situation at the time was appalling. There was no central government, not outside the big cities. In the hinterlands they could care less who was "in power". All they knew was that Americans were there and they have Ak's and it's great fun to shoot at said Americans. My battalion took over an entire Army brigade's area that they couldn't tame. Fast forward 5 months and the entire area was pacified. It was extremely hard work and only worked when, to put it bluntly, we killed most if not all the insurgents in our area. We were recognized by the president for our prowess and handshakes and pats in the back were to be had everywhere.

So after that we thought we were hot stuff and went into Afghan, ignorant of the situation and full of ourselves. My battalion(2/7) along with 1/6 were the first American units to punch back into southern Afghanistan. Long story short: it was an absolute nightmare. We were so unprepared for what we encountered that it was sickening.

I won't go into the full account there but needless to say it was a wakeup call to us and America in general. After patrolling hundreads of miles in Iraq and seeing everything that country had I thought I had seen extreme poverty and hopelessness. That view changed after Afghanistan. I have never seen such poverty and despair in my life. It is night and day. Iraq is a progressive country compared to it. Personally I have little hope for the outcome of Afghanistan. It is a cesspit full of misery and hatred. I really don't even know what our objective there is anymore. Support the local government or eradicate the Taliban. After seeing the reports of talks with the Taliban I hold zero hope for that country now. It is another Vietnam all over again. And it's sad

Eliminatus...
Thank you for your service to our nation.

In your opinion, what are the possibilities of a program for total annihilation of the Taliban ?

Is it possible, probable or impossible ?

Must we wait and brace for another 9/11 ?

(Seems where there's a will, there's a way.)

quote:

---

In your opinion, what are the possibilities of a program for total annihilation of the Taliban ?

---

Not possible, and this highlights the basic misunderstanding by Americans of the rest of the world.

The "Taliban" is more of a uber-conservative political-religious movement. It's members don't wear uniforms, they don't gather for weekly meetings at the Taliban Hall. The same people who are shooting at Americans at night are the same ones shaking hands and building schools during the day in a lot of instances. You cannot possibly kill every Talib without killing every single person in all of Central Asia

Most likely there were folks in 19th Century U.S. of A. who thought it too was impossible to pacify the wild native American Indian.

Where there's a will, there's got to be a way.

If no will, well, we'd best brace for more 9/11 like attack series ?

Great discussion and lots of good insight.

quote:

---

1stRangersAg - Not possible, and this highlights the basic misunderstanding by Americans of the rest of the world.

---

I totally agree. Back in the 2002-2003 timeframe some friends and I had a good discussion about how long we would be in Afghanistan and how long we would be in the new war in Iraq.

At the time, my estimate was 10+ years for Afghanistan and 50+ years for Iraq. I based this partially on US involvement with the two great nations of Germany and Japan post WWII. The key difference that I highlighted at the time was the fact that Germany and Japan were great nations BEFORE we defeated them. Afghanistan was nothing and the Soviets had already spent 10 years in there wasting time, money and lives for no benefit (that I'm aware of anyway). Iraq was a more advanced country but still a piece of crap where its citizens allowed it to be ruled by a dictator for decades. My point here is that no amount of US Military effort and no amount of US Aid Dollars are going to fix the fundamental problems in either of those two countries. In Iraq, we've removed the dictator but I don't think Americans are going to be vacationing in Iraq any time soon. A sharp contrast to both Germany and Japan which like I said were great before and they're great again.

It would take a lot of work to reform Iraq to the point to where it could re-enter polite society (so to speak).

Afghanistan is absolutely hopeless. And Afghanistan has always been hopeless. This is nothing new. I didn't really know much about Afghan history but reading up on it a little bit clued me into the fact that the British fought 3 wars there between 90-170 years ago.
First Anglo-Afghan War
Second Anglo-Afghan War
Third Anglo-Afghan War

I think this painting sums up the futility of Afghanistan

quote:

---

'Remnants of an Army' by Elizabeth Butler portraying William Brydon arriving at the gates of Jalalabad as the only survivor of a 16,500 strong evacuation from Kabul in January 1842.

---

It's really interesting if you read about the British wars in Afghanistan. The names are all the same - Kabul, Kandahar, Ghazni, Mazari Sharif, Khyber Pass. The good news is that we're not losing soldiers to Cholera like the British did.

It took the British 3+ years in the 1830s-1840s to run out of money for funding their war in Afghanistan.
It took the Soviets about 10 years through the 1980s to run out of money period.

Obviously the US is already out of money. As several have pointed out, we've killed the original Taliban and the Nouveau Taliban will eventually be killed and replaced by even more unfortunate souls who see fighting the US as a worthwhile pursuit. In fact, the sense of accomplishment that some young Afghani gets from engaging US troops might be their sole purpose for continued survival - apart from Opium.

I don't see any successful end state for US operations in Afghanistan and that is not the fault of our Military.

With 1865 US Troops killed in Afghanistan and 32 Australians including some murdered by Afghanis they had trained, I say it's beyond time to pull the plug.

Ironically, I agree with the conclusion the British came to at the end of the Third Anglo-Afghan War some 93 years ago.

quote:

---

Indeed, as a result of the war and the lessons that were learned about the potential of airpower in the region, following the war, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Hugh Trenchard, proposed controlling the frontier by air power alone. This plan had proved highly successful in Mesopotamia, Aden and the Transjordan, however, due to the uniqueness of the North-West Frontier and also due to inter-service politics the plan was not accepted until later. In 1937, it was eventually decided that should another war break out with Afghanistan, or in the event of a major tribal uprising, the RAF would take the offensive, while the ground forces would act defensively.

---

I think it would be wise for the US to adopt a similar strategy. (I'm a former US Army Tanker so I'm not a modern Air Power expert so bear with me here) We should probably have 1 or 2 Air Bases for operating UAVs to monitor Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan and we should probably leave behind enough ground troops to secure those bases. I think these days, with thermal imaging, armed UAVs, etc., we could still blow up the occasional very obvious convoy without putting our soldiers on the ground at risk.

What Ulysses90 described about the compartmentalized battlefield is kind of like having a fist-fight in a narrow hallway. I don't care if you've got 20 guys on your side. If I've only got to fight one of them at a time and the other 19 guys can't help out the one guy I'm addressing at the moment, I've got a chance.

And BeBopAg - Manifest Destiny won't work for Afghanistan.

[This message has been edited by HollywoodBQ (edited 1/4/2012 10:33p).]

I'd have to say impossible BeBopAg. Not the way we are currently fighting it.

America is stuck feeding in aid and fighting units piecemeal into a region that has never been conquered in an extremely unpopular war to defeat an enemy whose ideals will never be supplanted by our own by a military that quite frankly, doesn't want to be there, all the while our government is breathing down our necks and disallowing us to properly execute the war.

Without writing a paper on it I can sum it up to one thing that underlies our future there. There will to survive and operate is simply greater than our own to eradicate it. Wars often come down to a contest of wills. And for an enemy that embraces death in it's pursuit of victory, well....That's ultimate will right there. Ours on the other hand is flagging everyday. The government hates it, the public hates it, and our military hates it.

The government hates it because the longer a war runs the more chances of bad things occuring, such as civilian deaths. The public hates it because brave American warriors are coming home in boxes from places that 99% of Americans have not heard of/care about. The military hates it because we are given an impossible task within a set timeline and must prosecute as if walking on a tightrope, too afraid to execute the war the way it needs to be executed. Speaking from personal opinion here we also didn't see what we were doing there. It's hard to fight and die for people that frankly, hate us anyway, in a country that is so impoverished and unlike our own it's nearly impossible to empathize with the indigenous people.

I remember the first ambush we ran into into Afghanistan. We were still pushing into our AO when our first truck detonated and SAF was whipping in from every direction. Thankfully all the leaders were veterans from Iraq so we responded back quite nicely. After it was over I remember walking a BS and finding a few Afghan bodies. They had no shoes, cracked bolt actions, AK's and RPK's and RPG's left from the Soviet war that were older than me and a single children's walkie talkie. And had apparently been waiting for over three days with little food or shelter. I remember thinking to myself, how the hell are we to defeat an enemy that willfully attacks the strongest fighting force in the world with antiquated weapons and glee?

And then I looked over the blasted landscape(flat ass desert with a few shrubs and a few scattered buildings), the burning Humvees, and dead bodies and I couldn't help thinking, "What the hell are we doing here?" What American interests are we protecting by being right there , right then? How many Americans have even heard of Bakwa, Afghanistan and even know that a small battle had just been fought in it's name? I watched the medivacs helo out and it was all clear. We were screwed. Great way to start a campaign. Don't get me wrong. Though our hearts weren't in it our minds and bodies were. We executed our duties to the best of our abilities and kept a strong face to the Taliban the entire time and kept going until my platoon was pulled out for combat ineffectiveness(too many KIAs to properly function in our role). Last we heard our area had been ceded to the Taliban and all NATO forces were concentrating on the big cities and leaving the the rest to the enemy. So again we were left with the mindset of what was it all for?

I don't know. Maybe just my experiences left a bitter taste in my mouth. We fought and bled for a strip of land that we just gave right back. 20 lives lost, 15 warriors still in burn units, 30 amputations and 180 other purple hearts awarded. All in a unit comprised of about 700 with attachments. Now with the supposed talks being held to ratify an official Taliban office in the region.... it kinda makes me sick. I have lost faith in this war and I know I'm not the only one. And therein lies my point. I don't want this war, I don't believe we need this war, and I'm tired of watching friends STILL coming home in boxes from that place. They believe in their cause and are willing to fight for it to the death. And I don't think America is in the long run. Hell all they have to do is hold out till 2014 then we pull out! And believe you me, they can hold out.

So there it is. I don't believe we can defeat the Taliban in it's entirety. Suppress? Definitely. Or at least until we get so tired of it we quit. Which I believe we will.....we already are slowly.

Disclaimer: Everything here is of course my own personal opinion and I speak for no one else.

Eliminatus, are you still in the Corps?

Afghanistan is a holding action, the real fight is in Pakistan.

I am no longer in the Corps. My contract ended summer of '09. I couldn't reenlist into the infantry due to injuries so I am now in the 1st Civ Div.

Ya know after erverything that has occurred I wonder if this was all a precursor to Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan to me makes the most sense and IMO we should have invaded that country instead of Afghanistan. We are already fighting their nationals. We had several confirmed kills of Pakistanis and uncovered factory made IED kits. That's right. IED kits ready to go all individually packaged and straight off the assembly line. Hecho en Pakistan. Like Little Debbie Snacks from hell. Their Madrassas are the reason we had so many suicide bombers in our area. All in all? It is my belief that at some point there will be a conflict with us and Pakistan....or Iran.

Type in on Wikipedia:
List of Concentration and Internment Camps.

You might be amazed.

Plus, we control a lot of lonely Pacific Islands for relocation, rehabilitation, re-education.

Sounds somewhat totalitarian does it not ?

Where there's a will, there'a a way (especially if we're hit again with a series of 9/11's).

Speaking of totaliarism, the 1930's Germans (and Poles) were kicking around the idea of relocation with something called "The Madagascar Plan".
Might also check that out on Wikipedia.

[This message has been edited by BeBopAg (edited 1/6/2012 1:45p).]

Elim, also curious if you were on the flat black or shiny side?

You want to really throw your conspiracy theories for a loop look up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Really want to stretch a conspiracy theory all the way back to 1961 ?

Check out:
porported suicide Henry Marshall, USDA, Bryan, Texas via...

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmarshall.htm


[This message has been edited by BeBopAg (edited 1/6/2012 6:15p).]