NATO finds that Water is Wet

[MKSheppard]

Link

Tl;dr, the Beeb got a document titled:

State of the Taliban: Detainee Perspectives dated 6 January 2012:

The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Kabul says the report - on the state of the Taliban - fully exposes for the first time the relationship between the ISI and the Taliban.

The report is based on material from 27,000 interrogations with more than 4,000 captured Taliban, al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters and civilians.

It notes: "Pakistan's manipulation of the Taliban senior leadership continues unabatedly".

It says that Pakistan is aware of the locations of senior Taliban leaders.

"Senior Taliban representatives, such as Nasiruddin Haqqani, maintain residences in the immediate vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad," it said.

It quotes a senior al-Qaeda detainee as saying: "Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. I can't [expletive] on a tree in Kunar without them watching."

"The Taliban are not Islam. The Taliban are Islamabad."

Our correspondent says the report seems to suggest that the Taliban feel trapped by ISI control and fear they will never escape its influence.

However, it states: "As this document is derived directly from insurgents it should be considered informational and not necessarily analytical."

The report also says that basically the Taliban are drawing down and waiting for NATO/US to leave, upon which they'll come out of the shadows and take over the country -- most Afghans no longer support the Kabul government due to massive corruption, etc. Some of the ways they're doing this are actually reducing offensive operations against NATO troops so as to speed their exit from Afghanistan.

Oh well, at least we now have a fully armed and operational drone war machine, so boots on ground are no longer required to find and kill major leaders.

[Baffalo]

I'm not going to try and justify the war in Afghanistan. I'm not going to say it was a mistake to go over there. I'm not going to say it was a mistake to leave. I am going to say that if we remove a government from power and then don't ensure it gets off on the right foot, we're inviting a power vacuum that will make things worse and leave the country in a state that hates us even more than where we were to begin with. We saw it with the Soviets and when we funded them back in the 80s, and we're going to see it again. Afghanistan is going to eventually come to despise any outside involvement in their country.

[Skgoa]

Because occupying them for 11 years doesn't achieve exactly the same...

[Simon_Jester]

If it had been done properly- assuming a proper job is possible in Afghanistan- then there would be a viable Kabul government that actually had the loyalty and support of enough of the Afghan people that it would be a moot point.

What we actually did was create a cardboard mockup of a government, one that wasn't able to command the loyalty of the people and can't seem to accomplish anything on its own because it leaks money like a sieve.

How much of that was unavoidable? How much of that could have been prevented if Iraq hadn't reduced Afghanistan to a sideshow of US strategy for five years? And given the imperatives towards invading Afghanistan in the first place in 2001, what road other than "do a better job of occupation and reconstruction" ever really existed?

[weemadando]

http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/ ... ullen.aspx

That's a really good lecture/interview on the many fuck-ups which the US made because it had refused to learn from every other time anyone in the world had done Counter-Insurgency before.

Establishing a strong central government and constitution and high courts don't mean shit to the farmers and market stall holders and other residents of villages who are getting threatened by the Taliban. What the fuck do they care if there's now the three branches of government established if they still don't have an measure of security at home? They took a top down, not bottom up approach.

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was mismanaged for far too long. Had it been done properly to start with, we might be getting somewhere now. But people don't want to stick around for the 10 more years it'll take to correct the initial mistakes and get back to square one.

[Skgoa]

If it had been done properly- assuming a proper job is possible in Afghanistan- then there would be a viable Kabul government that actually had the loyalty and support of enough of the Afghan people that it would be a moot point.

What we actually did was create a cardboard mockup of a government, one that wasn't able to command the loyalty of the people and can't seem to accomplish anything on its own because it leaks money like a sieve.

How much of that was unavoidable? How much of that could have been prevented if Iraq hadn't reduced Afghanistan to a sideshow of US strategy for five years? And given the imperatives towards invading Afghanistan in the first place in 2001, what road other than "do a better job of occupation and reconstruction" ever really existed?

How about: "no invasion"? In the end, Osama Bin Laden was caught exactly the way it should have been done from the start: human intel and a special forces op. The rest of the war achieved absolutely nothing. Oh wait, sorry, it cost thousands of lives and furthered - maybe even created - america's current budget and economic crisis.

[Baffalo]

If it had been done properly- assuming a proper job is possible in Afghanistan- then there would be a viable Kabul government that actually had the loyalty and support of enough of the Afghan people that it would be a moot point.

What we actually did was create a cardboard mockup of a government, one that wasn't able to command the loyalty of the people and can't seem to accomplish anything on its own because it leaks money like a sieve.

How much of that was unavoidable? How much of that could have been prevented if Iraq hadn't reduced Afghanistan to a sideshow of US strategy for five years? And given the imperatives towards invading Afghanistan in the first place in 2001, what road other than "do a better job of occupation and reconstruction" ever really existed?

How about: "no invasion"? In the end, Osama Bin Laden was caught exactly the way it should have been done from the start: human intel and a special forces op. The rest of the war achieved absolutely nothing. Oh wait, sorry, it cost thousands of lives and furthered - maybe even created - america's current budget and economic crisis.

I doubt it created the budget or economic crisis but it certainly didn't do it any favors. The cost of putting troops on the ground in Afghanistan isn't the same as putting troops on the ground in Iraq. Most of the huge government overspending can be attributed to a bloated bureaucracy and a government much too large for its own good. If they could trim that back, as well as military spending (which should now be possible due to our withdraw from both theaters of operation), we should see the government start to recover the insane debt it's accumulated. That is, if the Democrats don't spend us into a deeper hole.

[Lonestar]

How about: "no invasion"? In the end, Osama Bin Laden was caught exactly the way it should have been done from the start: human intel and a special forces op. The rest of the war achieved absolutely nothing. Oh wait, sorry, it cost thousands of lives and furthered - maybe even created - america's current budget and economic crisis.

So, how were the Navy Seals gonna get there with no invasion of Afghanistan? Orbital Drop pods?

[Guardsman Bass]

If it had been done properly- assuming a proper job is possible in Afghanistan- then there would be a viable Kabul government that actually had the loyalty and support of enough of the Afghan people that it would be a moot point.

What we actually did was create a cardboard mockup of a government, one that wasn't able to command the loyalty of the people and can't seem to accomplish anything on its own because it leaks money like a sieve.

How much of that was unavoidable? How much of that could have been prevented if Iraq hadn't reduced Afghanistan to a sideshow of US strategy for five years? And given the imperatives towards invading Afghanistan in the first place in 2001, what road other than "do a better job of occupation and reconstruction" ever really existed?

How about: "no invasion"? In the end, Osama Bin Laden was caught exactly the way it should have been done from the start: human intel and a special forces op. The rest of the war achieved absolutely nothing. Oh wait, sorry, it cost thousands of lives and furthered - maybe even created - america's current budget and economic crisis.

To be fair, Bin Laden actually was in Afghanistan when the US invaded, before managing to slip out from Tora Bora. Had the US moved a bit faster in that particular part of Afghanistan in terms of committing troops, they might have been able to catch and kill him then and there.

[Skgoa]

So, how were the Navy Seals gonna get there with no invasion of Afghanistan? Orbital Drop pods?

What air defense did Afghanistan have? Don't you thin the US could have moved in and out of the country from bases in Pakistan with impunity?

[Kane Starkiller]

Are you saying that killing Bin Laden is all it would take to dismantle Al-Qaedas organizational, recruitment and training capabilities? While continuing to be harbored by Taliban government?

[Simon_Jester]

So, how were the Navy Seals gonna get there with no invasion of Afghanistan? Orbital Drop pods?

Clearly. They go with the orbital mind control laser.

In all seriousness, while I 100% understand the reasons why everyone and his cousin Fred hates the Iraq War, condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan strikes me as being a shining example of doublethink, committed because it's easier than putting the words "United States" and "just war" in the same sentence.

For heaven's sake, if you shouldn't fight a war with another country over their decision to lodge a pack of criminals while said criminals start blowing up thousands of your citizens, when can you fight? Ever? Or is the expectation that people should just respond to foreign marauders the way Ghandi planned to respond by the Japanese if they'd ever showed up in India- by laying down and letting the oncoming war machine roll over you, in hopes that eventually they get sick of slaughtering you?

Because the criticism of that approach is fairly obvious.

[weemadando]

How about: "no invasion"? In the end, Osama Bin Laden was caught exactly the way it should have been done from the start: human intel and a special forces op. The rest of the war achieved absolutely nothing. Oh wait, sorry, it cost thousands of lives and furthered - maybe even created - america's current budget and economic crisis.

So, how were the Navy Seals gonna get there with no invasion of Afghanistan? Orbital Drop pods?

So you're saying that tracking down and killing Bin Laden in Pakistan provides all the justification required for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?



Fuck, good thing he didn't turn up in Taiwan or we may have had to invade China to secure a base to kill him from.

[PainRack]

Simon, Osama was in Afghanistan before the invasion, and there was no reason to believe he would have relocated to Pakistan.

One might argue that a similar operation could had been conducted against Afghanistan instead of a full scale invasion, but from what I recall, the initial war in Afghanistan wasn't what we call an invading US army either.

[Simon_Jester]

Er... I don't deny this. Indeed, I would argue that without the US sending an army he would have stayed where he was, under the protection of much larger numbers of armed followers- it was the need to stay on the run and in fear of his life that forced him to retreat to a small compound at all.

Commando raids don't work so well on a man living in those conditions. They can work, or they can backfire horribly. Anyone remember the failed attempt to save the Iranian embassy hostages in 1980?

[weemadando]

There are numerous stories (all unconfirmed/unconfirmable) from SF groups around the world that the US command in Afghanistan routinely allowed Bin Laden slip away because they refused to allow Coalition forces (such as the most commonly reported story of the UK SAS) to engage as they wanted American forces to be the one's who got the capture/kill. And by the time units could be repositioned, the contact was lost and the trail cooling again.

That's the apocryphal side of things.

The undeniable side of things is that if the US hadn't shitted about and diverted required forces and actually committed to the Tora Bora campaign they probably would have got him there. Instead you got Iraq.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. The Afghanistan war was badly handled at most stages of the process. Whether those apocrypha are true or not, the basic point remains.

It is possible to be justified in fighting a war, and still fight it badly. Right does not make might; still less does it make brains.

[Zinegata]

The Afghanistan anti-war folks are being total idiots who are trying to poke nonsensical holes at the solid military and political reasons for overthrowing the Taliban regime. They really ought to learn some military and political realities before trying to poke holes in the arguments of people who do know what they're talking about.

Afghanistan in 2001 wasn't merely hiding Osama Bin Laden. It was also the home of major infrastructure supporting the Al Qaeda network - including the training camps and extensive logistics and financial support. People unaware of the facts may simply dismiss these training camps and support network (because they are again idiots), but the reality is prosecuting a terrorist campaign does require financial and logistical resources. There's a reason why major terrorist attacks - i.e. blowing up embassies or taking down the World Trade Center - was done by networks with extensive financial resources and training networks. You just can't run this kind of operation by watching a YouTube video.

Moreover, the justifications for invading Afganistan in 2001 were pretty rock-solid, and the arguments against invasion were often outright lies or downright insane. For instance, it's often been said that the "Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden, but Bush refused because he was a warmonger", yet in reality the Taliban had been refusing to hand him over since fucking 1998; and everyone knew that the Taliban was lying when it offered to "hold a trial for Bin Laden with its own courts" in 2001 - they were just buying time.

It was a criminal regime by any measure engaging in overt acts of aggression against other countries, and no attempt to hide behind the vague language of international law or pretending that it was only about Bin Laden (another patently insane idea) was going to change that. What happened in Iraq or any arguments on Tora Bora or how the war was prosecuted are immaterial to this debate: The Afghan War was justified because it was against a regime actively committing acts of aggression against others, and no amount of lying will change that.

[Rogue 9]

There are numerous stories (all unconfirmed/unconfirmable) from SF groups around the world that the US command in Afghanistan routinely allowed Bin Laden slip away because they refused to allow Coalition forces (such as the most commonly reported story of the UK SAS) to engage as they wanted American forces to be the one's who got the capture/kill. And by the time units could be repositioned, the contact was lost and the trail cooling again.

That's the apocryphal side of things.

Apocryphal and highly improbable. The forces of the United States made up the vast majority of those committed to the campaign, as they still do today. That non-U.S. coalition forces would routinely locate bin Laden while U.S. forces never did beggars belief.

[Skgoa]

In all seriousness, while I 100% understand the reasons why everyone and his cousin Fred hates the Iraq War, condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan strikes me as being a shining example of doublethink, committed because it's easier than putting the words "United States" and "just war" in the same sentence.

And once again you are overstating your case by assuming motives that fit your world-view. But to adress your point: a america has lost all rights to fighting "just wars" when you guys started doing such a bad job. ATM you guys (or rather: all of us, since we are part of it, too) are an occupying force that has failed to actually create the baseline that would make the occupation legal under international law: i.e. security etc. - if you turn it around and actually create a situation over there in which people aren't worse than before, I am going to admit that you did good. But right now it's a huge mess and you guys are talking about getting out of there.

For heaven's sake, if you shouldn't fight a war with another country over their decision to lodge a pack of criminals while said criminals start blowing up thousands of your citizens, when can you fight? Ever?

Tell that to the afghani. THEY didn't do anything. Yet they get their country bombed and occupied. And when they resist, they get abducted to a concentration camp to be tortured for years or - if they are lucky - they only get tortured for a bit and then executed.
And even if bombing brown people were the right strategy against terrorism, (hint: did it achieve anything?) your argument would still have become invalid the moment Bin Laden had fled the country. Nobody in that country or the tribal areas of Pakistan is any threat to the US.

Or is the expectation that people should just respond to foreign marauders the way Ghandi planned to respond by the Japanese if they'd ever showed up in India- by laying down and letting the oncoming war machine roll over you, in hopes that eventually they get sick of slaughtering you?

Get of your high horse. There are many options between "surrender immediately" and "bomb ALL the brown people!"

[Lonestar]

So you're saying that tracking down and killing Bin Laden in Pakistan provides all the justification required for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?



Fuck, good thing he didn't turn up in Taiwan or we may have had to invade China to secure a base to kill him from.

Pretty sure he wasn't hiding out in Pakistan in September of 2001 Man. Or did you know something everyone else on the planet didn't in September of 2001?

There are numerous stories (all unconfirmed/unconfirmable) from SF groups around the world that the US command in Afghanistan routinely allowed Bin Laden slip away because they refused to allow Coalition forces (such as the most commonly reported story of the UK SAS) to engage as they wanted American forces to be the one's who got the capture/kill. And by the time units could be repositioned, the contact was lost and the trail cooling again.

That's the apocryphal side of things.

Assuming that's true, it couldn't have possibly been because they had gotten burned by allowing allies try to make the capture before(Tora Bora).

What air defense did Afghanistan have? Don't you thin the US could have moved in and out of the country from bases in Pakistan with impunity?

Seriously? Am I the only one who remembers this far back?

There was still a big (?) on the number of MANPADS that were floating around in Afghanistan in 2001. The sort of special operations-only war you're talking about would be particularly vulnerable to that.

Shoot, at the altitudes we're talking, you wouldn't necessarily need to use MANPADs to take out helicopters. Just shoot them with RPGS as they travel in the valley below where you set yourself up.

And since we haven't knocked the Taliban out of power, OBL is going to be hiding amongst an organization that is overtly hindering kill/capture missions.

And finally, Skgoa thinks that letting the Taliban remain in power while playing host to OBL does not send the message that "The US isn't really worked up about this". Fuck, if I was Pakistan and the US came to me and said that the scope of the search would be limited that we were leaving his associates alone, then the lesson I would walk away with from that is "all that is required of us is the illusion of the bare minimal of cooperation".

nd once again you are overstating your case by assuming motives that fit your world-view. But to adress your point: a america has lost all rights to fighting "just wars" when you guys started doing such a bad job.

Uh, fuck, when was this?

Oh, several years AFTER the invasion started?

ATM you guys (or rather: all of us, since we are part of it, too) are an occupying force that has failed to actually create the baseline that would make the occupation legal under international law: i.e. security etc. - if you turn it around and actually create a situation over there in which people aren't worse than before, I am going to admit that you did good. But right now it's a huge mess and you guys are talking about getting out of there.

Sure it's a "huge mess". But, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here. "America fucked up the execution so they should just wash their hands and leave and they are saying they are going to leave anyway?"

By the way, SF is going to be in country for many, many more years after more conventional forces leave in 2013. I'm not counting the training contingent which is also slated to stay in-country for many, many more years. It's not quite "cut and run".

Get of your high horse. There are many options between "surrender immediately" and "bomb ALL the brown people!"

Holy fuck, we bombed the Northern Alliance?

[weemadando]

There are numerous stories (all unconfirmed/unconfirmable) from SF groups around the world that the US command in Afghanistan routinely allowed Bin Laden slip away because they refused to allow Coalition forces (such as the most commonly reported story of the UK SAS) to engage as they wanted American forces to be the one's who got the capture/kill. And by the time units could be repositioned, the contact was lost and the trail cooling again.

That's the apocryphal side of things.

Apocryphal and highly improbable. The forces of the United States made up the vast majority of those committed to the campaign, as they still do today. That non-U.S. coalition forces would routinely locate bin Laden while U.S. forces never did beggars belief.

I think I've heard 3 versions of the story involving guys on the ground (UK and Commonwealth SAS and IIRC GROM or similar) and a couple involving drones where they didn't take the shot as they wouldn't be able to get in to confirm an ID in time.

Most of them weren't "yo, we've been following Bin Laden all day and he's in the building next to us, can we toss a grenade in" it was stuff like: "we saw a large force moving into the village, well equipped and better trained than most Taliban forces and there was one dude who was taller than the rest of them and through the 100x spotting scope we were using from our hide it certainly looked like a tall bearded middle eastern guy in a dishdisha, can we put mortars and sniper fire onto them when they leave?"

*edit* as for the "getting burned by allies bit", most of these stories IIRC originate in the initial stages of the war when the network was getting rolled up back towards Tora Bora and the Pakistani border.

[MKSheppard]

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was mismanaged for far too long.

I'm not really quite sure anyone operating under current political restrictions can solve the puzzle that is Afghan COIN.

The USSR invaded in 1979 with around 80,000 troops, and the maximum Soviet troop level was around 100,000~.

Meanwhile, the US troop force numbers are:



The Soviets spent much more man-years of patrolling with their force level, and with much more permissive rules of engagement, yet couldn't crack the puzzle.

[weemadando]

Because killing more people with more soldiers isn't the answer to the problem?

[Guardsman Bass]

So, how were the Navy Seals gonna get there with no invasion of Afghanistan? Orbital Drop pods?

What air defense did Afghanistan have? Don't you thin the US could have moved in and out of the country from bases in Pakistan with impunity?

Publicly acknowledged US bases in Pakistan are very politically problematic for Pakistan. They've allowed some air fields and occasional troop landings, but actual, public bases would likely be unacceptable. They did allow air fields for drone strikes, but only in secret - and it was a big controversy in Pakistan when the news got out.

Afghanistan's just not a particularly accessible country if you don't share a border with it.

The Soviets spent much more man-years of patrolling with their force level, and with much more permissive rules of engagement, yet couldn't crack the puzzle.

The Soviets were also fighting against Afghans receiving significant assistance from outside countries routed through Pakistan. Who knows what might have happened if the US hadn't decided to push back and route aid through the Pakistani government.