Ticking Clock Demands Innovation But Have The Marines Gone Rogue (Again)?

[Mihais]

Key ideas spotted at a first read:
-''troops in eastern regions such as Tangi Valley find themselves with the unenviable task of trying to persuade villagers to disavow the Taliban without having the forces to offer lasting security.''
-''One of the most persistent complaints is that promised projects are never realized''
-''They know in nine months we’re not going to be here''
-''Two Afghan officials from the Ministry of Agriculture backed out at the last minute, citing fear for their safety, leaving no Afghans to preside over the meeting''.brave souls,aren't they

Sir,do you think the 14 Btn's currently deployed in Helmand are an overwhelming force?Given the population spread there.I for one I'm still holding my breath this year(methaporically speaking),for Helmand at least.The rest looks bleak.

[Bluesman]

THE fatal mistake - of all the bungles we've made since we came in like thunder and lightning, and got done what we went there to do - was telling the Afghans that we will leave by a certain date, and not under certain conditions.

If you're trying to get somebody to join in with you on something dangerous, you will NEVER get a commitment from them if you just told 'em that your own has a very short shelf life.

This guy set out to make sure we lose this war, and then took the one necessary step to make sure that we would. Surges, offensives, grand plans...it all means nothing without an absolute and unwavering commitement to victory.

We should have left when we HAD victory, as it was defined then, but it all looked so easy, didn't it? And we stayed. And now, we are NOT staying. BOTH were mistakes, but it could have still had a better ending than it will have now, after we told the world that we really have no interest what happens to the place after July 2011.

[Bluesman]

Kasmir, I will do my absolute dead-level best for your son and his guys, you may bet on that.

[Mihais]

Master Sgt. do you guys have any cooperation with the Romanian TF in Zabul?

A sad ''yep'' about the timetable part.

[Bluesman]

Master Sgt. do you guys have any cooperation with the Romanian TF in Zabul?

We DO, a little. Because we're an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) unit, we have strict guidelines on what we can do with various classifications of our data. Because Romania is NATO, we can do more for them than non-member countries, but it's still a bit harder than dealing with all-US or even British.

But yeah...we've done a bit of work for 'em. We have a very talented Foreign Disclosure Officer (FDO) in Zabul that feeds our stuff to our partners, and I'm the FDO here at OUR unit, so I get to work with just about all the Coalition partners.

[astralis]

blues,

BOTH were mistakes, but it could have still had a better ending than it will have now, after we told the world that we really have no interest what happens to the place after July 2011.

it is strange, we both see much of the same information but we come to such different conclusions. i'm willing to bet a box of butter cookies that afghanistan will not be worse in july 2011 and that we'll still be involved there in a significant way at the time. want to bet?

[Bluesman]

blues,



it is strange, we both see much of the same information but we come to such different conclusions. i'm willing to bet a box of butter cookies that afghanistan will not be worse in july 2011 and that we'll still be involved there in a significant way at the time. want to bet?

I'll bet, but how 'bout we push it out until 365 days after we've gone, say, July '12 (if the 'President' can be believed about his timeline, the ONLY thing I trust him to keep his word on)? Because until then, the US military will be doing what we do, and showing the ONLY talent in the whole god-foresaken place to actually DO anything, and right up until we leave, the house of cards will be more-or-less standing.

As soon as we withdraw the only people with the realism, will, and means to actually keep the place from going straight to hell, that's where it WILL go.

THAT is MY bet: when the US forces leave Afghanistan, it will be less than a year before utter chaos and blood are the only things that will be aplenty there.

Oh, and opium.

[astralis]

fair enough-- i'll save this for july '12.

but to be honest, i think you should be praying that you're completely wrong...:)

[Bluesman]

fair enough-- i'll save this for july '12.

but to be honest, i think you should be praying that you're completely wrong...:)

Oh, I hope for that fervently; I'd love nothing better than pay you.

But as the general said, 'HOPE is not a method'.

[S2]

Time

I had hoped that our force surge was a part of the smoke and mirrors. Going from 65,000 to 95,000 or so over the next five months and then INITIATING the withdrawal no earlier than July, 2011 would buy a LOT of time just to pull down to where we were just a couple of months ago.

By the way, a couple of months ago wasn't good but it kept us in the game.

Mihais, 14 battalions in Helmand is fine. The problem is that there are probably fifteen provinces of similar ilk where seven to fourteen would be a solid presence. Even fourteen, though, isn't saturating Helmand. The Helmand river valley south of Garmsir is still largely uncontrolled as example. Why Gates recently hinted that we may draw down earlier than the July 2011 date is beyond me.

I've been opposed to the mission for years. We achieved our primary objectives with SOF and the U.S.A.F. in the space of fifteen weeks. Everything after that has been a fiasco premised on the Powell doctrine of "You break it, it's yours". That principle is a flawed perception.

As to one of my other heros, Thomas P.M. Barnett, his perception of a break between the "GAP" and the "CONNECTED WORLD" is accurate enough. I think that what we've proved over the last eight years, however, is our inabililty to get there from here.

We're not postured for nation-building as currently configured. What's been done of late is too little and represents institutional band-aids to organizations poorly designed to execute the mission.

[Bluesman]

I had hoped that our force surge was a part of the smoke and mirrors. Going from 65,000 to 95,000 or so over the next five months and then INITIATING the withdrawal no earlier than July, 2011 would buy a LOT of time just to pull down to where we were just a couple of months ago.

By the way, a couple of months ago wasn't good but it kept us in the game.

Mihais, 14 battalions in Helmand is fine. The problem is that there are probably fifteen provinces of similar ilk where seven to fourteen would be a solid presence. Even fourteen, though, isn't saturating Helmand. The Helmand river valley south of Garmsir is still largely uncontrolled as example. Why Gates recently hinted that we may draw down earlier than the July 2011 date is beyond me.

I've been opposed to the mission for years. We achieved our primary objectives with SOF and the U.S.A.F. in the space of fifteen weeks. Everything after that has been a fiasco premised on the Powell doctrine of "You break it, it's yours". That principle is a flawed perception.

As to one of my other heros, Thomas P.M. Barnett, his perception of a break between the "GAP" and the "CONNECTED WORLD" is accurate enough. I think that what we've proved over the last eight years, however, is our inabililty to get there from here.

We're not postured for nation-building as currently configured. What's been done of late is too little and represents institutional band-aids to organizations poorly designed to execute the mission.

Hear him, people. He is a Herald.

The only quibble is, I think we COULD have done it, BEFORE announcing that we wouldn't. Now, I see no chance of anything but a smaller disaster. That's as good as we'll get, I think.

[S2]

Bluesman Reply

"I think we COULD have done it, BEFORE announcing that we wouldn't..."

I'm no herald.

I agree that it might have been possible but I'm no fan of coalition warfare and I'm unsure that most of our coalition partners are either. Their troops are fine. Their political constituencies aren't. I'm no fan of the U.N. either.

Finally, I'm a BIG fan of conquest. For that, I'll rebuild...in my own image. If not, I want no part of it. Question is, was there any reason to want Afghanistan. Not that I can see.

What can we do and SHOULD do? Let the world know again what they should already know-that we're easily pissed off and willing to use force anywhere on this planet when so-and focus on that. No regime is safe if they choose to harbor our enemies and they'll suffer for the consequences of such without any promise that we'll provide them with a new car to drive but a sure guarantee that we don't mind going back and doing to them again what we've demonstrated already if they can't learn from the experience.

[Bluesman]

"I think we COULD have done it, BEFORE announcing that we wouldn't..."

I'm no herald.

I agree that it might have been possible but I'm no fan of coalition warfare and I'm unsure that most of our coalition partners are either. Their troops are fine. Their political constituencies aren't. I'm no fan of the U.N. either.

Finally, I'm a BIG fan of conquest. For that, I'll rebuild...in my own image. If not, I want no part of it. Question is, was there any reason to want Afghanistan. Not that I can see.

What can we do and SHOULD do? Let the world know again what they should already know-that we're easily pissed off and willing to use force anywhere on this planet when so-and focus on that. No regime is safe if they choose to harbor our enemies and they'll suffer for the consequences of such without any promise that we'll provide them with a new car to drive but a sure guarantee that we don't mind going back and doing to them again what we've demonstrated already if they can't learn from the experience.

Marry me.

[S2]

Bluesman Reply

"Marry me."

No.