Friday, March 10, 2017

Is Afghanistan Now President Trump's War?


New York Times editorial: Afghanistan Is Now Trump’s War

Before the White House responds to the Pentagon’s latest request for a troop surge in Afghanistan to counter insurgent forces that now control substantial parts of the country, it would serve administration officials well to examine the long history of deluded thinking about what could be accomplished if the United States committed more troops to the effort.

Back in 2007, Gen. Dan McNeill, the top commander in Afghanistan, pleaded for reinforcements to the force of 26,000 troops he led, arguing it was “vitally important that the success Afghanistan has achieved not be allowed to slip away through neglect or lack of political will.” His successor, Gen. David McKiernan, echoed that call the following year, asserting: “We are not losing, but we are winning slower in some places than others.”

Those efforts failed or fell well short of their aims. Afghanistan remains in the grip of a resolute insurgency and a kleptocratic, dysfunctional governing elite. The Afghan state has been rapidly losing control of districts across the country to Taliban factions and Afghan forces are getting killed and injured at a rate American commanders call unsustainable.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The push is definitely on President Trump to depoy more U.S. troops .... Top U.S. CENTCOM General: More U.S. Forces Are Needed In Afghanistan (March 9, 2017).

7 comments:

James said...

"Afghanistan Is Now Trump’s War" 50+ days, that was fast.

László Mikó said...

James, just wait until he win the war.

James said...

Laszlo,
I just don't know if it's a winnable one.

László Mikó said...

James:

Well, as soon as they find or decide goal(s) in a war, every can be winnable.

Aizino Smith said...

It comes with the territory.

Trump knew when he threw his hat in the ring that, if he won, it would be his.

That is just common sense.

That said Obama did not do his legacy, the American people, or Trump any favors in his prosecution or lack thereof of that theatre of war or GWOT in general.

James said...

Laszlo,
Here is my take on Afghan. We are fighting an enemy that has at least two sanctuary borders (actually more) with regimes overtly and covertly against us. In 2001 the Taliban had made a mistake in building up a conventional presence in Afghanistan allowing us to destroy that presence with ease, but then they did the conventional and blended back into the population or went over the borders. This presented the US with a very very old dilemma in warfare, the battle for the general population (hearts and minds whatever you want to call it). In the past this was solved (usually on a temporary basis) by either forced resettlement or essentially annihilation. The US tried a third way "nation building". Well that didn't work as it just opened up the country to worse graft than it had known from inside and outside forces. This type of policy also usually cedes initiative
to the enemy, who with enough patience and time will easily make a comeback (which is where we are now in that country).
Solve the problems with Pakistan and Iran and Afghanistan's solution follows. Short of a mid size to major shooting war with Iran I don't see it.
I'll talk more later, right now that hermit job looks kind of interesting.

James said...

Aizino,
You're right of course, but it was pretty fast.