Obama And The McChrystal Gambit

[helene_t]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

 

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

[kenberg]

Even worse news for Obama: Robert Kagan has something good to say about him.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0062803754.html

 

Excerpt:

President Obama's biggest move, of course, was naming Gen. David Petraeus commander in Afghanistan. The decision signaled Obama's determination to succeed in Afghanistan, despite the growing chorus of wise men counseling, as our wise men always seem to do, a rapid retreat. Those in the region who have been calculating on an American departure in July 2011, regardless of conditions on the ground, should think again. That date was never realistic, and the odds that Petraeus will counsel a premature withdrawal -- or be ordered to withdraw regardless of his assessment of the situation -- is infinitesimal.

 

Praise from Charles Krauthammer may be only weeks away. Nah.

 

Although I agree (just on general principles, not because I actually understand the situation) with the comment "that date was never realistic", we might well ask why it was announced.

[Winstonm]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

 

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

 

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

 

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

 

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

[mike777]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

 

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

 

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

 

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

 

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

 

What policy/solution do you advocate?

[Winstonm]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

 

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

 

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

 

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

 

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

 

What policy/solution do you advocate?

Repeating myself, Mike, but I advocate the Rand Corporation position of treating all terrorists as terrorists instead of a jihadist military faction that can be defeated by the actions of military might.

 

It is not only Afghanistan, but the entire misguided concept of a War on Terror that needs to be rectified.

[mike777]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

 

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

 

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

 

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

 

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

 

What policy/solution do you advocate?

Repeating myself, Mike, but I advocate the Rand Corporation position of treating all terrorists as terrorists instead of a jihadist military faction that can be defeated by the actions of military might.

 

It is not only Afghanistan, but the entire misguided concept of a War on Terror that needs to be rectified.

ok what is that position then? I mean they have police in the country now, so I have no idea what you mean. No one is against the police arresting/killing these guys now as far as I know.

[Winstonm]

Excellent description of where we find ourselves: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502160_pf.html

[Winstonm]

isn't it clear that the egg was first? how is this even a problem?

It isn't a conceptual problem, indeed eggs were first. But in order to breed chicken and eggs you have to start with either some chicken or some eggs. If you have neither, you have a problem.

 

Like if you don't have peace in Afghanistan and you don't have a functional government either.

This is the perfect loop-de-loop for the military industrial complex. If there is insurrection, the government is not honest and stable and thus the war can never be won, while the good news for weapons makers is that although the war can never be won it can be fought perpetually. How's that for a win-win?

 

From the U.S. Army COIN manual:

 

"The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government."

 

That sort of rules out Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as candidate countries, doesn't it?

Winston, it sounds like you are strongly against the current policy in Afghanistan.

 

What policy/solution do you advocate?

Repeating myself, Mike, but I advocate the Rand Corporation position of treating all terrorists as terrorists instead of a jihadist military faction that can be defeated by the actions of military might.

 

It is not only Afghanistan, but the entire misguided concept of a War on Terror that needs to be rectified.

ok what is that position then? I mean they have police in the country now, so I have no idea what you mean. No one is against the police arresting/killing these guys now as far as I know.

It is simple, Mike. Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

[mike777]

Excellent description of where we find ourselves: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502160_pf.html

Winston I think all thinking Americans know where we are in Afghanistan.

 

 

It is a mess and a stalemate at best, at best.

 

War is horrible...a nine year war with all the problems you cited and many more problems is horrible.

[NickRW]

It is simple, Mike. Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

[mike777]

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:

 

 

1) declare victory

2) go away

3) let the police handle it etc.

[NickRW]

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:

 

 

1) declare victory

2) go away

3) let the police handle it etc.

Yeah. But perhaps to play devil's advocate a little here, in recent history we have Northern Ireland as an example of where the "terrorist" has, if not been defeated, at least given up their ways. But that was a conflict where the British were also (almost) on home turf, the "terrorist" was making uncomfortable noises on our home turf and it took over a quarter of a century.

 

The Afghan situation is a long way away (and therefore more expensive) and seems to be on a larger scale (more expensive in terms of money, lives, and, ye gods, pehaps the fact that it is on a larger scale just might mean that our "help" isn't really wanted) and it is, to my mind at least, questionable about the degree to which the Afghans were responsible for our need to be in a "war against terror" mode in the first place.

 

One has to wonder if, in this particular situation, whether diplomacy and foreign aid might have been both cheaper and more effective.

 

One also has to wonder if, in the current economic climate, whether spending all this money is not financial suicide - certainly 25+ years of this does not seem like an enticing prospect.

 

Nick

[mike777]

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:

 

 

1) declare victory

2) go away

3) let the police handle it etc.

Yeah. But perhaps to play devil's advocate a little here, in recent history we have Northern Ireland as an example of where the "terrorist" has, if not been defeated, at least given up their ways. But that was a conflict where the British were also (almost) on home turf, the "terrorist" was making uncomfortable noises on our home turf and it took over a quarter of a century.

 

The Afghan situation is a long way away (and therefore more expensive) and seems to be on a larger scale (more expensive in terms of money, lives, and, ye gods, pehaps the fact that it is on a larger scale just might mean that our "help" isn't really wanted) and it is, to my mind at least, questionable about the degree to which the Afghans were responsible for our need to be in a "war against terror" mode in the first place.

 

One has to wonder if, in this particular situation, whether diplomacy and foreign aid might have been both cheaper and more effective.

 

One also has to wonder if, in the current economic climate, whether spending all this money is not financial suicide - certainly 25+ years of this does not seem like an enticing prospect.

 

Nick

Yes that frames the debate.

 

If terriosts kill 3000+ people in a few hours is it best to respond with diplomacy and more aid money.

[hrothgar]

Yes that frames the debate.

 

If terriosts kill 3000+ people in a few hours is it best to respond with diplomacy and more aid money.

I'd say "satisfactory" rather than best, but yes...

 

I know that going off and invading random countries might make you feel better.

Me, I'm quite happy with size of my dick.

[Winstonm]

It is simple, Mike.  Don't try to fight wars against terrorists - there is no win.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. To win against a "terrorist", who is almost always on his home turf, you need to prove to those who would support the terrorist that you are not going to go away - which means a long conflict - not necessarily perpetual though.

I guess if I understand Winston, the debate is the other way to win is:

 

 

1) declare victory

2) go away

3) let the police handle it etc.

#4) Actually read the conclusions of the Rand Corporation analysis instead of creating a straw man to tussle with.

[Winstonm]

Yes that frames the debate.

 

If terriosts kill 3000+ people in a few hours is it best to respond with diplomacy and more aid money.

 

You'll have to forgive, Mike. He has a fetish for straw.

[Winstonm]

As I know Mike will not bother to actually look it up and read it, I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

 

The authors compiled and analyzed a data set of all terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, drawn from a terrorism-incident database that RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism jointly oversee. The authors used that data to identify the primary reason for the end of groups and to statistically analyze how economic conditions, regime type, size, ideology, and group goals affected their survival. They then conducted comparative case studies of specific terrorist groups to understand how they ended.

 

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

 

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

 

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

[NickRW]

As I know Mike will not bother to actually look it up and read it, I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

 

The authors compiled and analyzed a data set of all terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, drawn from a terrorism-incident database that RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism jointly oversee. The authors used that data to identify the primary reason for the end of groups and to statistically analyze how economic conditions, regime type, size, ideology, and group goals affected their survival. They then conducted comparative case studies of specific terrorist groups to understand how they ended.

 

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

 

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

 

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

 

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

 

Not really saying you're right - or wrong - just that it is a can of worms.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

You see, a real cynic would say that the drug production "problem" in Afghanistan has got worse since we got involved - and who imports these drugs? We do.

 

Problem? What problem!

[Winstonm]

Not really saying you're right - or wrong - just that it is a can of worms.

 

This is certainly true. But in my opinion the biggest mistake we make is falling prey to the misguided simplification that terrorists are evildoers.

 

Terrorists are not simply mad dogs. Terrorist organizations are trying to force a change. We need to understand that once we strip away their tactics, they have what to them is a legitimate complaint - and if we are reasonable, we must admit that there is some degree of legitimacy to their complaints.

 

That to me explains why so many of these groups (43%) ended by political means and not by force.

[mike777]

I agree,....many here in usa see terrorists as evil doers......he makes his point

[mike777]

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

 

---------------

 

 

 

so you advocate coming up with a new plan..ok what is it......after ten years....of war...." come up with....method..."

----------------------

 

We all, we all agree the war is a mess and very hard......

 

---------------

 

 

I think i posted years ago in the forum.... in the mess of Iraq....I hope the surge works..I pray it works.....

 

 

Same here......

 

-------------

 

 

 

Winston has a plan I guess....whatever....I hope/pray it works

 

taking pot shots at his plan after ten years or any plan...is novice.....

 

----------------

 

 

I just hope we can be safe.....ok....sort of safe.....

 

sidenote...some advocate as police action

 

rape....murder....etc....never win.....we just do our best.....

 

I hate to see terror added to this list.......never win..just do our best.....

[helene_t]

..... I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

 

.....most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

 

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

 

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

 

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

Yeah, although the conclusion may be right these statistics don't really support it.

 

Maybe more useful to look at how often a particular strategy (say, military action) was successful as a proportion of the number of cases in which that strategy was employed.

 

But you would need to look at individual cases. Are there any cases that are similar to Afghanistan?

[hrothgar]

..... I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

 

.....most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

 

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

 

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

 

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

Yeah, although the conclusion may be right these statistics don't really support it.

 

Maybe more useful to look at how often a particular strategy (say, military action) was successful as a proportion of the number of cases in which that strategy was employed.

 

But you would need to look at individual cases. Are there any cases that are similar to Afghanistan?

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan comes to mind, as does

the British invasion of Afghanistan

various Indian invasions of Afghanistan

 

If we wanted to extend the theme, we could work our way back to the Macedonian invasion of Afghanistan...

 

On a more serious note:

 

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, centralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

[helene_t]

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, cetralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

The U.S. invasion of Panama would be an example I think.