Afgahnistan. Doomed to failure?

#1
Lads need some help I have to give a 10 min speech on the title have done some research but need some opinion for people who have been in theater.
 
#2
Who to? How much material have you sorted for yourself already?
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#3
Justa thought: Vietnam was the presses finest hour (from their perspective). They defeated the mighty US Army and the evil Republicans etc. Right from the start of current ops they have been desperate for the same thing - whatever the reality.
 
#5
First- Define 'failure'
Secondly, Define what isn't a failure. What's new, what's working?

Third, ask yourself- If we carry on doing this, that and the other, are we likely to 'achieve' failure, and if so , why.

Fourth-recommendations- Where you want to reinforce success, where you cut your losses, and where you think you might need something new.

(Even if you don't know what you need yet, knowing that you need it is the first step.)

I think the question 'Doomed to failure' is a misleading as 'Fated to succeed.' It starts out with the preprogrammed presumption of disaster.

'Afghanistan- Risks and Opportunities' is better. There's lots of risks to what we want to do. Lots of suggestions to do the things we want.

We'll probably never reach the end state that would be our ideal. But neither will the Taliban. One day we will find an acceptable balance point, and then the diplomat can take over.
 
#6
HectortheInspector said:
First- Define 'failure'
Secondly, Define what isn't a failure. What's new, what's working?

Third, ask yourself- If we carry on doing this, that and the other, are we likely to 'achieve' failure, and if so , why.

Fourth-recommendations- Where you want to reinforce success, where you cut your losses, and where you think you might need something new.

(Even if you don't know what you need yet, knowing that you need it is the first step.)

I think the question 'Doomed to failure' is a misleading as 'Fated to succeed.' It starts out with the preprogrammed presumption of disaster.

'Afghanistan- Risks and Opportunities' is better. There's lots of risks to what we want to do. Lots of suggestions to do the things we want.

We'll probably never reach the end state that would be our ideal. But neither will the Taliban. One day we will find an acceptable balance point, and then the diplomat can take over.
By then the country will be bankrupt.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#7
DigitalGeek said:
HectortheInspector said:
First- Define 'failure'
Secondly, Define what isn't a failure. What's new, what's working?

Third, ask yourself- If we carry on doing this, that and the other, are we likely to 'achieve' failure, and if so , why.

Fourth-recommendations- Where you want to reinforce success, where you cut your losses, and where you think you might need something new.

(Even if you don't know what you need yet, knowing that you need it is the first step.)

I think the question 'Doomed to failure' is a misleading as 'Fated to succeed.' It starts out with the preprogrammed presumption of disaster.

'Afghanistan- Risks and Opportunities' is better. There's lots of risks to what we want to do. Lots of suggestions to do the things we want.

We'll probably never reach the end state that would be our ideal. But neither will the Taliban. One day we will find an acceptable balance point, and then the diplomat can take over.
By then the country will be bankrupt.
You're definitly doomed to failure.
 
#8
HectortheInspector said:
We'll probably never reach the end state that would be our ideal. But neither will the Taliban. One day we will find an acceptable balance point, and then the diplomat can take over.
Pretty much what happened with the IRA then - both sides privately acknowledged that it was impossible to completely defeat the other militarily but it took almost two decades to reach an 'acceptable balance point' where a political solution (of sorts) could be reached.
 
#9
Why don't you compare and contrast methodologies and experience of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1980s. Might help you to draw some conclusions. There was an excellent article in Sunday Times magazine about this a couple of weeks ago, with Ed Butler meeting a retired Russian General with extensive experience of Afg.

Then ask yourself the following questions,

Is it worth the effort?

Is it worth the cost in money and lives?

What do the Afghans themselves really want?

What will a compromise solution to the conflict look like?

Is there an easier alternative to achieving security for the west in the region?

Personally, I prefer Fallsch's observations....
 
#10
stormtrooper2006 said:
Lads need some help I have to give a 10 min speech on the title have done some research but need some opinion for people who have been in theater.
Smacks of Journo to me
 
#12
I think we (our very clever chiefs of staff and politicos), completely ignored it fella, but by all accounts, there is an awful lot of interest now. Especially in their version of an Afghan Army, which at its peak numbered 300,000 and had 30,000 desertions a year. Remember, the solution currently being sold to western electorates is that the ANA will take over the role played by western forces at some point close by in the future.

I would argue that is a load of bolleaux...
 
#13
nigegilb said:
I think we (our very clever chiefs of staff and politicos), completely ignored it
Quite an assumption that. Then again, I could see the politicos wishing to believe the best in any group of hostiles as the left are wont to do (everything's our fault that they don't like us, don't forget), but not anyone in the millitary.
 
#15
mac1 said:
nigegilb said:
I think we (our very clever chiefs of staff and politicos), completely ignored it
Quite an assumption that. Then again, I could see the politicos wishing to believe the best in any group of hostiles as the left are wont to do (everything's our fault that they don't like us, don't forget), but not anyone in the millitary.
How else do you explain the 2006 deployment into Helmand with such a pitifully small force and little or no helo support?

I think all things Russian started taking on massive interest a few short weeks later..

I don't share your confidence with the (then) Intelligence support or UK Military Leadership. Been playing catch up ever since and are now handing over to US Forces.
 
#16
Afghanistan is already a failed narco state with a corrupt government.
With the recent fraudulent presidential elections and the parliamentary elections postponed it is hard to see any signs of success with the present political strategy.
The "surge" of US troops are not going to meet their stated dates to be in-country as the Pentagon struggles to find the additional troops promised. Pre-Haiti they were hoping to have them on the gorund by December not this summer.
Meanwhile the tactical battlefield victories do little to win over pushtun hearts, when the crowd sitting in Kabul have little relevance in alleviating their lives.
Note the Pushtuns are key - as they are more than 50% of population and the Afghan Taliban are almost 100% Pushtun.
Therefore failure to bring them on sides imho defines failure in Afghanistan.
The politicians are going to have to define it in more nuanced terms in the end, to allow them to walk away with any dignity.
However it could get worse, if Afghanistan fragments under the weak central government leading to the possibility of the creation of a Pushtunistan nation, assisted by the onset of chaos within Pakistan.
We will be back at square one and created a very unstable entity more dangerous than Afghanistan ever was.
 
#17
stormtrooper2006 said:
Lads need some help I have to give a 10 min speech on the title have done some research but need some opinion for people who have been in theater.
Try Gen McChrystal, he is expecting good things in AFG
 
#19
nigegilb said:
Why don't you compare and contrast methodologies and experience of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1980s. Might help you to draw some conclusions. There was an excellent article in Sunday Times magazine about this a couple of weeks ago, with Ed Butler meeting a retired Russian General with extensive experience of Afg.

Then ask yourself the following questions,

Is it worth the effort?

Is it worth the cost in money and lives?

What do the Afghans themselves really want?

What will a compromise solution to the conflict look like?

Is there an easier alternative to achieving security for the west in the region?

Personally, I prefer Fallsch's observations....

Indeed, compare the russian way of doing things to the way we do.

Compare the range of opposition the Soviets had to that which we have.

Compare the losses the soviets took to those taken by NATO, year one to year nine.

Compare what Afghanistan had before the invasion to what it has now.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads