Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Executive Summary on the CINC's AFG Speech

If you come here on the regular basis, then you read my stuff here over at Big Peace as well on our switch from Conditions to Calendar based planning for AFG.

What was the meaning of the President's speech on AFG? Here is the executive summary - nothing new really. At the height of fighting season we have announced the first step in our slow retreat under fire from AFG.

The Taliban know it and they are doing exactly what they should be doing when their enemy has announced a calendar based retreat; fight enough to claim you kicked them out, but husband most of your resolve and forces for when they leave, set the conditions for surrender and acceptance of your power by those either on the fence or on the other side - then take power.

We are no longer in this to win, as the President announced at West Point 18-months ago. All we are doing is closing our eyes and hoping that the AFG forces we are training will be able to ... do something ok; maybe.

Recoverable, perhaps. The trendlines though are not in our favor.

19 comments:

ewok40k said...

1. Taleban have safe havens in PAK, and political/financial/logistical support of ISI.
2.US cant hope to pacify PAK with current mapower available.
3.Mobilization for total war is not in the options.
4.Add the 3 factors and we have recipe for prolonged guerilla campaign ending with at best stalemate, and probably in retreat due to exhaustion.
Replace PAK with China, AFG with VN, and we have pattern that should be spotted years ago.
Moreover, the same pattern happened in the Soviet times.
US main, and fundamental error was assumption of PAK allying itself with US.
Poland declared support for the NATO mission there until 2014, maybe it wont be needed that long. Obama seems trying to disentangle by 2012 elections.

Wstr said...

Slightly off topic from the main Afghan remarks but to quote (my emphasis added):
"<span>We protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others. We stand not for empire but for self-determination</span>"
So with that mandate can I look forward to the State Dept no longer talking rubbish over the Falklands future? :)

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Did anyone really expect anything different, considering that President "Hope and Change" has multiple mentors steeped in '60's antiwar philosophy that led us to a strategic loss in Vietnam?  Oh wait, he never actually listened to those people.  Right.

Skippy-san said...

The trendlines never will be in our favor and the people of Afghanistan and their problems are not are problem-and never should have been. He should have announced a complete pull-out this year-as a cost cutting measure for the US government. The original aim was to extract vengance for 9-11 and break up Al Queada. That was essentially accomplished in 2002/2003. Then we somehow morphed it into "nation building" for a nation that has never allowed it self to be "built". The sooner we leave both Afg and Iraq the better.

MR T's Haircut said...

"Let me be clear"...  this is only about Politics.. this administration can't even call a dead US Soldier, American, they have started calling them "NATO" for any death or casualty.  

This is what happens when the Humanity Teacher and Art Teacher get tenure in Public schools....

I won't let the deaths be in Vain.  I will remember them in my thoughts and teach my Son of their sacrifice.

I wonder how long before we have to "Violate the Soverighnity" of Afghan and go back in and strike the Taliban or Al Queda? 

Oh sorry boys, we cant violate the Afghan air space... Hot Dog Yellow!  Buster to Home plate...   I can see it now...

So what do we do in 2 years when we are out of Pockystan and Afghanistan?  Iran will fill the void again and the cockroaches will be all over the table with the lights out....  interesting...

Obama is a fool.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Then why, Skippy, was he pontificating from on high in 2004-2008 about AFG being our "war of necessity"? 

DeltaBravo said...

Just to translate... every time he says "Let me be perfectly clear" stand by for a ton of manure incoming.

The Usual Suspect said...

URR,
The only reason the annointed one ever does or says anything is in his own personal self interest and political expediency.  He does not believe in America; he believes in his party.

The Usual Suspect said...

Nixon used to use that phrase...especially just before his, "I am not a crook" line.  Nixon would do anything to defend America while Obama just wants to apologize all over the place.  Two extremes.  Two good examples of bad examples.  All Nixon had to do was not cover up and all Obama has to do is admit he is educated beyond his intelligence and in way over his head.

Skippy-san said...

For the same reason that his predecessor said, "Iraq was in the national interest" and "The surge was working" and there was "light at the end of the tunnel".  Because no politician of either party can acknowlege that the country might have made a mistake. And-in 2004 at least, a credible argument could be made that Afghanistan was being starved to feed the Iraqi beast. However-in the long term, both Presidents got it wrong:

I think that the — I do believe there is a threat to the United States. Nine-eleven happened. There are people who want to launch attacks against the United States. I don’t believe it’s an existential threat. This notion that we face something called Islamofascism, this notion that al-Qaeda has the capacity to establish some new caliphate extending across the Islamic world, it’s absurd. The threat is real; the threat is limited. And I think that we should see the threat as akin to an international criminal conspiracy. And the best way to deal with an international criminal conspiracy is through an international police effort, collaborating with allies who have an interest in preventing terrorist attacks, and address the problem that way, much as — much as I think the international community attempts to address the problem of the Mafia. And that doesn’t involve occupying, invading countries, believing that you can somehow transform them.

Jay said...

Sal -- Pls tell me your definition of "win" in A'stan.  Remind me again, just when was it, that we were in it "to win"?

While the "he's not serious, he's losing the war..." fits your intended storyboard -- the numbers don't show that.  We've been there since 2002 -- with not much to show during the time we took our eyes of the ball & got side-tracked by Iraq.

I am not hopeful with the Karzai Government's efforts wrt corruption to date.

Let's look at some numbers -- Jan 2009 (Pres Obama Inauguration) -- 32,800 U.S. forces, close to the highest number we had there until then.

Surge -- goes to 98K -- by Sep, 2010.

Post surge drawdown when we'll have had 3 years of steady ANA & ANP growth [quality and quantity varies...] -- 65K(!) -- Dec 2012.

So -- at Dec 2012 -- post surge draw-down, we'll still have DOUBLE the troops than when Pres Obama took office.

At some point -- we'll need to leave & the A'stans need to figure it out -- on their own (with our declining level of assistance...).  Which might even mean a coalition Gov't that includes the Taliban.

ewok40k said...

ahem, definition of fighting to win is being ready to stay there 100 years if it takes so... I guess this is not an option - and despite Rumsfeld remarks, never was.

CDR Salamander said...

Jay,
- "Win" is an AFG that is self governing to the extent that it can no longer be a safe haven for AQ and its Taliban enablers.  The govt of AFG can handle its security needs.

You need to get your facts straight on AFG.  I have them because I was there.  You need to stop reading DailyKos/DemocratUnderground newspeak on the war as it has no basis in reality.

AFG was turned over to NATO in last '05 finishing up in early '06.  NATO/ISAF said "we've got it" but they could never meet the force levels they initially said they needed and refused to increase field commander's request for additional security forces to create a safe environment.  We realized this fact and began to fill in for European failures to meet their force requirements in mid 2007 with the RW bridging force in RC(S).  Read the CDRS archive - it is all there.

The "surge" you talk about was initiated, planned and begun all during the Bush administration.  That is a fact.  Obama only approved it continuing on.  It only reached its full level a few months ago and has not yet had a chance to sustain effects on the ground  - now it is being pulled back too early.

You have to sustain a surge in order for it to create the effects you desire.  If you prematurely end a surge, you lose all the things you have gained.  

AFG would be able to stand on their own if we had the patience to do this right.  We used to have a conditions based plan - one that included force reductions as certain conditions took place.  Obama threw that away and is going instead with a calendar based plan - one that history tells us is a recipe for disaster.  That too is a fact - all documented in the CDRS archive.  Look it up yourself.

A calendar based plan is a phased withdrawl - AKA retreat under fire.  It signals a weak horse.  Once you are a weak horse, people who will have to live there after you live will start to change sides over time.  

Review the Friendship Bridge POSTEX.  It didn't have to end this way - but it will.  All for politics.  This is not Bush's fault - this is Obama.  Full stop.

Skippy-san said...

At what cost? That is the operative question. What didn't we do that we could have done-but for the waste of resources on a people who have not taken advantage of our largesse?  Our real enemies-not some psuedo synthetic one-are getting a free ride out of us being in Afghanistan. China, Russia, India they all have zero troops in Afghanistan. They are able to focus on their competitive positions in the world. A world that is markedly different than twenty years ago when the Taliban came to power in Afg. And the arguement that "we can never leave" seems to me to refute the idea that any progress that has been made overall in other areas, including counter terrorism at home. Whatever window of opportunity we had in Afghanistan closed long before Bush left office.

Staying for years and years in Afghanistan certainly hasn't made the USA any safer, it has perhaps been a boost for the Afghans, but just like with the Iraqis , there should come a time that if they choose to continue to be all screwed up,  then the burden of that being all screwed up should be on them-not us. Given a choice, I'd like to see the US help itself for a change. When ( and if) we get all of our troops out of that place, Afghanistan, the place will be no better than it is now. Especially as long as the current Afg government is in power. It is up to the Afghan people to reform their corrupt government and stabilize their country.Not that I expect they will-but the bottom line is We should do what's good for us, not for them.

Jay said...

Good luck with that definition of "win". Success, vice win, is a more realistic term. I hope, that a few decades from now, you'll not have some columns on A'stan, similar to yours on Vietnam. I wonder, if you do, that you'll draw a connection to the focus and effort being split due to Iraq. I hope so...(context...). Time will tell. Skippy may be proven correct here.

sid said...

Right out of the Frank Church playbook...

CDR Salamander said...

Jay,
Educate yourself a bit.  From ISAF's website:

MISSION STATEMENT

"<span>In support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ISAF conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.</span>"

sid said...

Right out of the Frank Church playbook...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Sal,

There you go, letting facts get in the way of a good lefty anti-Bush rant....