what do you guys think of the new Afghan strategy?

Honestly, I do not see much chance of this succeeding. U.S. forces have essentially surrendered to the Taliban in some areas and the focus now seems to be on protecting the cities, mainly in the South, which means the Taliban will build up their strength in sparser areas and the north.

There is a growing issue of our support from other countries. Also the situation in Pakistan only increases the risks of us being unable to contain the Taliban. These measures are just too little too late I'm afraid.

One of the biggest problems in Afghanistan is that, IIRC, the money required to support Afghan Army and National Police forces that are large enough to control the country (by US military estimates) is actually more than Afghanistan's legal GDP. So, obviously, that is a major issue if you want to "Afghanize" the war. We can pay for them to fight, but for how long? Moreover, the whole situation over there just reeks of South Vietnam to me. So I have difficulty seeing that this will end well for the US. It never has for those that have invaded Afghanistan. At the same time, I personally can't support just leaving the country, both because of the loss of international standing that would entail, the affects to NATO, and the likelihood that A-stan would go right back to hosting terrorists intent on striking the United States. I think the best thing that we can do with a troop increase is stabilize and improve the situation so that Afghan forces can take over more. Then we turn over power to a local strongman, back him up with money and aid for a while until we can leave entirely and then the country goes back to being the backwater that it usually is.

Basically I agree with Vlad, this is probably too little to late. This plan is pretty much a copy of the Iraq surge, and the conditions that enabled the success of the surge in Iraq are not there in Afghanistan.

i think the essence of obama's afghan strategy should be to reconcile the taliban. i understand that this is no easy task for the americans. the US media once asked the pakistanis (who know afghanistan better than anyone in the whitehouse) what they think of the situation and they didnt think the US can handle it. maybe US would be able to within the next two years somehow appease the taliban and form a coalition gov lol...i dont know it could be just wishful thinking. but this is still different from vietnam though, taliban is not as popular in afghanistan as the VC was in vietnam...though they are still quite popular.

the U.S seems plunged into the Vietnam War, but this time the war and the Vietnam War, is different from most of the world is not against the United States, the Taliban are evil, I think we should eliminate them, but the people of Afghanistan do not think so, not the majority of the people of Afghanistan support, eight-year war in Afghanistan, the Taliban has not been eliminated, but more and more, Obama has announced that thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan and claimed that one year after the army began to withdraw, it is cheating the type of commitment, If this is optimistic, then why send more troops.
Afghanistan, where there is a big problem, and that is the land of Afghanistan impoverished people rely on opium to survive, and the Taliban to protect them, and to obtain benefits from the get life and military supplies, which continues to be active, they even get a lot of Pakistan people's support,of course, a big reason which related to religion.
Many foreign governments have given the Afghan government's economic assistance, including the Western countries, there is Russia, China, but such assistance is not able to solve the problem.
Why the United States does not face these same problems? It considers high-tech military force can solve the problem, it is wrong. The United States should be genuinely in accordance with the occasion of assistance from the community as a whole, relying on the United Nations.
At the beginning of the Bush administration to attack Afghanistan, when China and Russia have been best to help, so that the coalition forces in northern Afghanistan, easily toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but Bush mistakenly believe that the Afghan problem ready had solve , then the U.S re-repression and strategies surrounded by China, Russia, and the invasion of Iraq - a country and the Taliban irrelevant.
This is the United States as a result of wrong policies.

maozedong said:

the U.S seems plunged into the Vietnam War, but this time the war and the Vietnam War, is different from most of the world is not against the United States, the Taliban are evil, I think we should eliminate them, but the people of Afghanistan do not think so, not the majority of the people of Afghanistan support, eight-year war in Afghanistan, the Taliban has not been eliminated, but more and more, Obama has announced that thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan and claimed that one year after the army began to withdraw, it is cheating the type of commitment, If this is optimistic, then why send more troops.
Afghanistan, where there is a big problem, and that is the land of Afghanistan impoverished people rely on opium to survive, and the Taliban to protect them, and to obtain benefits from the get life and military supplies, which continues to be active, they even get a lot of Pakistan people's support,of course, a big reason which related to religion.
Many foreign governments have given the Afghan government's economic assistance, including the Western countries, there is Russia, China, but such assistance is not able to solve the problem.
Why the United States does not face these same problems? It considers high-tech military force can solve the problem, it is wrong. The United States should be genuinely in accordance with the occasion of assistance from the community as a whole, relying on the United Nations.
At the beginning of the Bush administration to attack Afghanistan, when China and Russia have been best to help, so that the coalition forces in northern Afghanistan, easily toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but Bush mistakenly believe that my colleague to solve the Afghan problem, re-repression and strategies surrounded by China, Russia, and the invasion of Iraq - a country and the Taliban irrelevant.
This is the United States as a result of wrong policies.

Click to expand...

i dont think China would get involved in this even if the US asks, and it is best adviced that Russia stays out of it too, which i think it will. i wonder how many countries are willing to lend extra help, some of the smaller countries dont count cuz they are just you know what suckers. but more important ones like Britain, France and Germany, and of course Canada, their help would be much needed. if that help isnt there, and afghanistan is all f*cked up, that's gonna put a huge rift within the NATO not that its not already struggling with collective action problems. but the country that can offer the most help is definitely pakistan

pla101prc said:

i dont think China would get involved in this even if the US asks, and it is best adviced that Russia stays out of it too, which i think it will. i wonder how many countries are willing to lend extra help, some of the smaller countries dont count cuz they are just you know what suckers. but more important ones like Britain, France and Germany, and of course Canada, their help would be much needed. if that help isnt there, and afghanistan is all f*cked up, that's gonna put a huge rift within the NATO not that its not already struggling with collective action problems. but the country that can offer the most help is definitely pakistan

Click to expand...

I do not think China and Russia should enter the war, I always think that to solve the Afghan problem can not rely on force, to really help the Afghan people to help them solve their problems, which rely on the help of the entire international community to eliminate the Taliban, must fight for the support of the Afghan people, while the United States in Afghanistan, indiscriminate bombings, often wrong to destroy an innocent village, these acts will not get the support of the Afghan people.
China has repeatedly given to the Afghan government's economic aid, I remember one of which was 300 million U.S. dollars, the other one was 150 million U.S. dollars, China has always supported the Afghan Government.

A self sustaining Afghan force in two years is really a challange. And I guess it sure won't be completely reliable then.
But maybe important parts of the country can be secured and developed from wich stability can spread later.

Especially the police forces are very often not loyal to the central government, but local govenors / warlords. These very often seem to have their own (family) benefits in mind. This also greatly impairs a compreensive strategy. Maybe someone would even have to take on those in a way. Wich would really be a big, and momentarily destabilizing, action.
Right now it's just not safe enough to allow a usefull community / infrastructure building that supports itself. But that needs security forces in the local area.

Finn McCool said:

One of the biggest problems in Afghanistan is that, IIRC, the money required to support Afghan Army and National Police forces that are large enough to control the country (by US military estimates) is actually more than Afghanistan's legal GDP. So, obviously, that is a major issue if you want to "Afghanize" the war. We can pay for them to fight, but for how long? Moreover, the whole situation over there just reeks of South Vietnam to me. So I have difficulty seeing that this will end well for the US. It never has for those that have invaded Afghanistan. At the same time, I personally can't support just leaving the country, both because of the loss of international standing that would entail, the affects to NATO, and the likelihood that A-stan would go right back to hosting terrorists intent on striking the United States. I think the best thing that we can do with a troop increase is stabilize and improve the situation so that Afghan forces can take over more. Then we turn over power to a local strongman, back him up with money and aid for a while until we can leave entirely and then the country goes back to being the backwater that it usually is.

Click to expand...

I agree, this is a lot like South Vietnam. Mainly because the scope of the conflict is much greater. Iraq did not really spread despite many fears that it would. However, not only do you have this unstable situation in Pakistan it is now spilling over into Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.

If Afghanistan is taken over by the Taliban then the Pakistani Taliban will gain the edge. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan do not have anywhere near enough strength to fight off a threat from Taliban forces, even with the foreign troops present. It would require a major intervention by Russian forces to keep those two countries from falling to Taliban-aligned forces.

Of course, given the security, economic, and political environment in Pakistan we could easily fail without leaving Afghanistan. In Pakistan I see all the problems that precipitated Somalia's collapse.

This plan is pretty much a copy of the Iraq surge, and the conditions that enabled the success of the surge in Iraq are not there in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Trying to replicate the surge won't work not just because of the different fighting environment, but also because the numbers aren't even as significant. The number of U.S. troops will reach 100,000 and the number of all troops will be 150,000. The figure for all forces is still 20,000 less than U.S. troops in the Iraq surge. Even if they get the 10,000 extra soldiers or more they want it will not solve another problem being the lack of any other major contribution. Those foreign troops are so small in comparison that their effectiveness is highly questionable never mind not all of them come from countries with as capable a military as ours.

If Kunduz falls apart the German forces there will stand little chance without U.S. intervention, which would distract from the situation in the south.

maozedong said:

the U.S seems plunged into the Vietnam War, but this time the war and the Vietnam War, is different from most of the world is not against the United States, the Taliban are evil, I think we should eliminate them, but the people of Afghanistan do not think so, not the majority of the people of Afghanistan support

Click to expand...

People said Iraq was the new Vietnam too - they were proven wrong. 'Course Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, is poorer, has worse infrastructure, etc.

Most Afghanis don't want the Taliban back, they're just unsure of their government. There's still plenty of chances to make things stable enough for Afghanis to deal with things themselves - I certainly like the plan of focusing military power to protect population centres rather than holding empty/nearly empty territory.

We'll have to see what happens.

Mr T said:

People said Iraq was the new Vietnam too - they were proven wrong. 'Course Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, is poorer, has worse infrastructure, etc.

Most Afghanis don't want the Taliban back, they're just unsure of their government. There's still plenty of chances to make things stable enough for Afghanis to deal with things themselves - I certainly like the plan of focusing military power to protect population centres rather than holding empty/nearly empty territory.

We'll have to see what happens.

Click to expand...

that's where the confusion seem to be. we dont know if the people of afghanistan really hate the taliban. afterall there has been rumours that they rather go to the taliban to solve their problems than the government. if that's the case then it would be hugely problematic. of course we can never know what's the real situation there, the media wouldnt tell us, and the occupational force and the afghan government prolly wouldnt tell the media LOL.
like you said we'll just have to wait and see.