U.S.' failure in Afghanistan

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2013

Signals and AW, you are right, there have been some encouraging signs, and more progress can be found by comparing data from 1990-2000 to 2001-2013: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/AFG.html

However:

1. Are the gains sustainable? I hope so, but it is too early to tell.

To me they are. Why? Because after an entire generation grew up in the mids of war they finally have something positive to fight for. From my interaction with soldiers who have served in Afghanistan I get the idea that the average Afghan is willing and ready to make progress happen as has been evident in a number of villages, towns and tribal areas that have kicked out the Taliban all on their own over the last couple of years, ultimately it comes down to the majority not wanting to return to Taliban rule and likely will fight to preserve some form of the current Afghanistan.

2. At what cost? This is not a MasterCard commercial where reducing maternal mortality or increasing education to Afghan women is "priceless". How many more lives could have been improved if the resources spent on the war in Afghanistan were spent elsewhere? I noticed that neither of you responded to dre's question: "if the costs of the War were doubled/tripled would you still consider it a success?"

Really depends, to me the question of price went out the window in 2001-2003 when it was decided to go the nation building path, just like the question of the legality of the Iraq went out the window when the US removed Saddam and his government.What is a failure to you, spending a trillion dollars and thousands of lives both Afghan and Western, giving them hope and then prematurely pulling out to leave them worse off than before or sticking to your position and giving them a chance to survive, fight for their own existence and thrive? For the most part the soldiers, both Afghan and western are fighting by choice, as are the Taliban, the civilians caught in the middle are predominantly casualties of the Taliban so the question here is about money not the death toll as pulling out too early would mean more people die and all the effort is wasted.

If we look only at the War in Afghanistan, I am with dre, the costs of the war (both in blood and money) far outweigh the benefits.

How so? Where would you draw the line? Would you have supported a threshold? Meaning after 1,000 soldiers dead and 500 billion spend we will call it quits regardless of the consequences?

And again your opinion of the benefits might differ when compared to the people directly affected, and more to the point should Afghanistan survive and even thrive over the next decade or two intact would that change the balance?

However, the War on Terror needs to be evaluated as a whole. Perhaps the mistake in Afghanistan was actually Iraq? If the US did not invade Iraq in 2003 then perhaps the War in Afghanistan would have been a success?

What is your definition of success in Afghanistan? No money spend, no blood spilled the Taliban just roll over and surrender? Anything above and beyond that is failure?

If this were the case, perhaps, the West would not have been so impotent towards Syria now?

Even if the Iraq war never happened, why would the west want to involve itself in Syria? If Iraq was a mistake military intervention in Syria surely would not be the greatest of idea's...

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2013

Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. The USA deserves a great deal of credit and blame for the state of today's world.

And the rest of the world deserves just as much credit and blame as well if not more so.

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2013

Yes, America has written many good cheques - but many have also been NSF (Somalia, Iraq, and perhaps Afghanistan). And now America is so bankrupt (politically and financially) that it cannot even pull out their chequebook without being mocked.

I wouldn't put Somalia on America's list a failures, it was a UN failure.

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2013

Yes for a few posts I did focus on the number of years as an indicator of the total costs of the war. However my position is that for a war (or any action) to be declared successful, the total benefits (security, economic gain, humanitarian, or other benefits/objectives) must outweigh the total costs (primarily human suffering, political, financial, environmental, opportunity costs, etc...). It looks like you are revising you position and similarly beginning to factor in the costs of war when judging it's success, am I reading you correctly?

The costs of Afghanistan are less in both financial terms and human lives then say World War 2... does this mean that World War 2 is more of a failure then Afghanistan?

And I will ask the same question again, what happened when the world put finances and the lives of their soldiers before the lives of the citizens of Rwanda? Was it worth it? Save a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand soldiers as well as a few billion dollars but letting 800,000 to a million people get slaughtered? Everyone favoured intervention, only everyone wanted someone else to do it, and the once willing to do the intervention were unable due to lack of equipment, transportation,finances, weapons or a combination thereof... At what point would 800,000 Rwandans become to expensive to protect?

GostHacked · July 9, 2013

You did edit it to make it seem like I was stating a fact and not suggesting what is likely to happen in future. That is not only pretty damned dishonest but a violation of the rules.

It's called 'selective editing. Might be part of that reading comprehension that may not be taught in the US educational system anymore.

I agree with your statement.

carepov · July 9, 2013

To me they are. Why? Because after an entire generation grew up in the mids of war they finally have something positive to fight for. From my interaction with soldiers who have served in Afghanistan I get the idea that the average Afghan is willing and ready to make progress happen as has been evident in a number of villages, towns and tribal areas that have kicked out the Taliban all on their own over the last couple of years, ultimately it comes down to the majority not wanting to return to Taliban rule and likely will fight to preserve some form of the current Afghanistan.

I hope that you are right.

Really depends, to me the question of price went out the window in 2001-2003 when it was decided to go the nation building path, just like the question of the legality of the Iraq went out the window when the US removed Saddam and his government.What is a failure to you, spending a trillion dollars and thousands of lives both Afghan and Western, giving them hope and then prematurely pulling out to leave them worse off than before or sticking to your position and giving them a chance to survive, fight for their own existence and thrive? For the most part the soldiers, both Afghan and western are fighting by choice, as are the Taliban, the civilians caught in the middle are predominantly casualties of the Taliban so the question here is about money not the death toll as pulling out too early would mean more people die and all the effort is wasted.

How so? Where would you draw the line? Would you have supported a threshold? Meaning after 1,000 soldiers dead and 500 billion spend we will call it quits regardless of the consequences?

And again your opinion of the benefits might differ when compared to the people directly affected, and more to the point should Afghanistan survive and even thrive over the next decade or two intact would that change the balance?

What is your definition of success in Afghanistan? No money spend, no blood spilled the Taliban just roll over and surrender? Anything above and beyond that is failure?

By the nature of your questions I strongly suspect that you are misunderstanding my position, I will try to clarify and hopefully address all your questions:

-I was in favour of the invasion of Afghanistan and still think that it was the right move in 2001

-Nation building was also a good idea (even though Bush mocked the idea in the 2000 election campaign).

-It's the execution that was terrible: it seemed like the West tried to do things on "the cheap" and were pennywise pound foolish. Not enough resources were deployed and this is why the war dragged on: Big mistake

-Overall, I am proud of Canada's armed forces and the way that they operated.

-I supported Harper when he went to Afghanistan and claimed that Canada would not "cut and run" and would not give a timeline for withdrawal, unfortunately that's just what we did. This is a sign of failure.

-From the US and Canada at least, there was a constant message of "we will never negotiate with the Taleban". Another sign of failure is that we are going to be doing just that.

-You are right, once the war starts and there is a commitment to nation building, the benefits change. I agree with you, the consequences of quitting are worse than the costs of continuing. We were stuck and had really no choice but to finish the job. So then, WHY THE HELL START ANNOTHER WAR IN IRAQ???

-Again, IMO the decision to invade and try to rebuild Afghanistan was good. To me, the military operations and organization looked good (not perfect), it is the bungling by the USA of the war on terror that caused Afghanistan to be a failure.

-Another mistake by the USA that hurt the mission in Afghanistan was its pissing away most of the goodwill it had with 99% of the world in 2001 (Iraq, rendition, torture, hubris and stupidity...)

-It's hard to say what would constitute success, but if the US sent more troops to Afghanistan in 2002-2003 instead of Iraq I think that we would have had better, faster results at much lower costs - that would have been a success.

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

-It's hard to say what would constitute success, but if the US sent more troops to Afghanistan in 2002-2003 instead of Iraq I think that we would have had better, faster results at much lower costs - that would have been a success.

If you really believe this, then why didn't Canada and other NATO members send more troops and equipment in 2002-2003 ? Canada didn't/couldn't deploy even one squadron of CF-188's, and many other member nations would not engage in actual combat operations.

Edited July 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

carepov · July 9, 2013

The costs of Afghanistan are less in both financial terms and human lives then say World War 2... does this mean that World War 2 is more of a failure then Afghanistan?

Well for the Axis yes, WWII was definately more of a failure...

For the Allies, no. Despite the greater costs, the benefits to WWII outweigh the costs. In other words the consequences of not fighting WWII were worse than the costs.

And I will ask the same question again, what happened when the world put finances and the lives of their soldiers before the lives of the citizens of Rwanda? Was it worth it? Save a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand soldiers as well as a few billion dollars but letting 800,000 to a million people get slaughtered? Everyone favoured intervention, only everyone wanted someone else to do it, and the once willing to do the intervention were unable due to lack of equipment, transportation,finances, weapons or a combination thereof... At what point would 800,000 Rwandans become to expensive to protect?

I 100% agree with you, and Romeo Dallaire, that we have a responsibility to protect and that Rwanda was a shameful failure.

Darfur = failure, and The Dem. Rep. Congo is also an ongoing failure.

One of my biggest criticisms of the War on Terror is that so many resources (political, economic, military, etc...) have been wasted that the West now has little or no capacity or stomach to intervene in places where it should.

carepov · July 9, 2013

If you really believe this, then why didn't Canada and other NATO members send more troops and equipment in 2002-2003 ? Canada didn't/couldn't deploy even one squadron of CF-188's, and many other member nations would not engage in actual combat operations.

Good question. Most NATO members are too chicken - they definitely deserve criticism.

But the biggest blunders were made by the USA. It was sheer hubris and stupidity to think that they could fight and win two wars simultaneously, while insulting and not cooperating with many of its allies.

Edited July 9, 2013 by carepov

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

Good question. Most NATO members are too chicken - they definitely deserve criticism.

But the biggest blunders were made by the USA. It was sheer hubris and stupidity to think that they could fight and win two wars simultaneously, while insulting and not cooperating with many of it's allies.

OK...it is obvious you want it both ways...holding the U.S. accountable for its decisions while excusing others for a lack of commitment in the first place. The Americans spent far more blood and treasure than all others combined, so it rings hollow to point at Iraq (or many of the other U.S. military commitments) as an excuse for success or failure in Afghanistan.

Canada proudly deployed to Afghanistan as the "moral" war with UN approval, asking its troops to die in convoys without armour (G wagons) with little tactical air support or heavy airlift. Cooperation starts at home.

carepov · July 9, 2013

OK...it is obvious you want it both ways...holding the U.S. accountable for its decisions while excusing others for a lack of commitment in the first place.

No, you twisted my words 180 degrees. I have severe criticism for all chicken-shit countries that show a lack of commitment - including Canada.

To balance some of my criticism of the USA, it deserves praise for its bravery and sacrifices in the War on Terror.

Don't you think that it is important to review mistakes and hold people accountable so that we are not doomed to repeating them?

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

Don't you think that it is important to review mistakes and hold people accountable so that we are not doomed to repeating them?

What you may consider to be a "mistake" was longstanding U.S. policy (for Iraq). Regime change in Iraq was a matter of public law in the United States long before 9/11 or the "invasion" of Afghanistan. Just because NATO joined the fray doesn't mean the U.S. or U.K. would just stop what they were doing elsewhere in the world.

American leadership is held "accountable" through the political process and elections. Afghanistan became a political football for domestic U.S. politics regardless of international expectations or perceived "mistakes". In short, the Americans owed NATO or other pretenders no more than they themselves were wiling to commit, and even then, the U.S. commitment was large in blood and money. Remember, the U.S. and NATO are separate ideas that do not get commingled so easily.

Edited July 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

July 9, 2013

Yes for a few posts I did focus on the number of years as an indicator of the total costs of the war. However my position is that for a war (or any action) to be declared successful, the total benefits (security, economic gain, humanitarian, or other benefits/objectives) must outweigh the total costs (primarily human suffering, political, financial, environmental, opportunity costs, etc...). It looks like you are revising you position and similarly beginning to factor in the costs of war when judging it's success, am I reading you correctly?

No, I'm not factoring in the cost. To me, if the goal is achieved, it's a success. I do not think one can put a price tag on such things. Some things are, as I've said, priceless.

carepov · July 9, 2013

What you may consider to be a "mistake" was longstanding U.S. policy (for Iraq). Regime change in Iraq was a matter of public law in the United States long before 9/11 or the "invasion" of Afghanistan. Just because NATO joined the fray doesn't mean the U.S. or U.K. would just stop what they were doing elsewhere in the world.

American leadership is held "accountable" through the political process and elections. Afghanistan became a political football for domestic U.S. politics regardless of international expectations or perceived "mistakes". In short, the Americans owed NATO or other pretenders no more than they themselves were wiling to commit, and even then, the U.S. commitment was large in blood and money. Remember, the U.S. and NATO are separate ideas that do not get commingled so easily.

Well then fine, the "longstanding US policy" in Iraq was counterproductive to America’s own interests (i.e.: a quagmire) and the Republican administration was indeed held accountable in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Also, as recognized since 2009, and generally agreed to by the electorate since, it that it is in America's own interests to cooperate more with NATO and other allies.

It's a good thing that at least some leaders recognize mistakes and learn from them.

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

Well then fine, the "longstanding US policy" in Iraq was counterproductive to America’s own interests (i.e.: a quagmire) and the Republican administration was indeed held accountable in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Also, as recognized since 2009, and generally agreed to by the electorate since, it that it is in America's own interests to cooperate more with NATO and other allies.

You conveniently forgot the 2004 elections, wherein President Bush was given a second term, soon after the "quagmire" in Iraq. America's interests are not determined by NATO, which is a toothless tiger without American military capabilities. "Cooperation" to the U.S. means getting to pay most of the bill. Thanks.

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2013

By the nature of your questions I strongly suspect that you are misunderstanding my position, I will try to clarify and hopefully address all your questions:

-I was in favour of the invasion of Afghanistan and still think that it was the right move in 2001

-Nation building was also a good idea (even though Bush mocked the idea in the 2000 election campaign).

-It's the execution that was terrible: it seemed like the West tried to do things on "the cheap" and were pennywise pound foolish. Not enough resources were deployed and this is why the war dragged on: Big mistake

I am with you up to this point, but this does not rest squarely on the shoulders of the US, it is on the rest of us too. Ultimately thought more resources would have still come up with many of the same problems, what people need to realize is that the US and ISAF tried to build a nation essentially from the ground up which means that no matter how much resources you have the war would not be much shorter.

-Overall, I am proud of Canada's armed forces and the way that they operated.

-I supported Harper when he went to Afghanistan and claimed that Canada would not "cut and run" and would not give a timeline for withdrawal, unfortunately that's just what we did. This is a sign of failure.

The whole point is not to make Afghanistan a paradise, the point is to give them the tools and knowledge to fight a war and then let them know they will be responsible from that point on for their own lives. The US giving them a deadline does not mean we are abandoning you, it means we are letting you be responsible for your own country, we will be behind you but we will let you take the lead. Kind of like teaching a child to ride a bike, you letting them go does not mean you are abandoning them it means you are letting them go on their own but you are there to support them should they need it.

-From the US and Canada at least, there was a constant message of "we will never negotiate with the Taleban". Another sign of failure is that we are going to be doing just that.

Not really our call, just like fighting a war against North Korea is not our call because at the end of the day we will not be the once dying by the tens or hundreds of thousands... If the government of Afghanistan deems it in their best interests to negotiate us "forbidding" them kind of defeats the last decade of building up to the moment when they could stand on their own feet.

-You are right, once the war starts and there is a commitment to nation building, the benefits change. I agree with you, the consequences of quitting are worse than the costs of continuing. We were stuck and had really no choice but to finish the job. So then, WHY THE HELL START ANNOTHER WAR IN IRAQ???

Honestly, I was young teen and had other things on my mind when the Iraq war started but yes the war was a mistake on several levels but once the government fell who was right and who was wrong became irrelevant, it came down to who can solve the problem at hand.

-Again, IMO the decision to invade and try to rebuild Afghanistan was good. To me, the military operations and organization looked good (not perfect), it is the bungling by the USA of the war on terror that caused Afghanistan to be a failure.

Not quite, its the political aspect that caused more problems, the inconsistent operations where one day it was important to do x yet the next day it was irrelevant, and to add more to this the fact that some NATO nations were less then committed to the mission even when their troops were deployed, some had agreements with local Taliban that boiled down to "you leave me alone and Ill leave you alone" while others avoided confrontation like the plague.

-Another mistake by the USA that hurt the mission in Afghanistan was its pissing away most of the goodwill it had with 99% of the world in 2001 (Iraq, rendition, torture, hubris and stupidity...)

-It's hard to say what would constitute success, but if the US sent more troops to Afghanistan in 2002-2003 instead of Iraq I think that we would have had better, faster results at much lower costs - that would have been a success.

See people want quick and cheap, if it took 6 years and half the money it did I doubt it would be a success in the minds of people because it should have cost less money, involved less troops for a shorter time, so no matter what was invested the end result would be that it took too many soldiers, too much money and too many years...

carepov · July 9, 2013

You conveniently forgot the 2004 elections, wherein President Bush was given a second term, soon after the "quagmire" in Iraq. America's interests are not determined by NATO, which is a toothless tiger without American military capabilities. "Cooperation" to the U.S. means getting to pay most of the bill. Thanks.

I will never forget the 2004 elections. It is proof that an electorate can be wrong. Thankfully, the electorate can also learn from its mistakes and it did so in 2006 and 2008.

Most American and NATO interests are common interests. Cooperation was very beneficial to the US in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, and even in Afghanistan.

Yes American's pay a higher price than anyone else, it is partially noble and courageous, but also partially foolish don't you think?

July 9, 2013

Yes American's pay a higher price than anyone else, it is partially noble and courageous, but also partially foolish don't you think?

I don't think so. I think it's unfortunate, but who else is going to do it?

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

I will never forget the 2004 elections. It is proof that an electorate can be wrong. Thankfully, the electorate can also learn from its mistakes and it did so in 2006 and 2008.

Most American and NATO interests are common interests. Cooperation was very beneficial to the US in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, and even in Afghanistan.

Yes American's pay a higher price than anyone else, it is partially noble and courageous, but also partially foolish don't you think?

Nope....the election in 2004 reflected American attitudes and expectations at the time. Kosovo and Libya were child's play for the U.S.A's overall capability, and frankly, NATO entanglements can be a planning and execution pain in the ass.

If being "foolish" means being American, then I want to be very, very foolish.

carepov · July 9, 2013

I don't think so. I think it's unfortunate, but who else is going to do it?

Do what, you mean like invade Iraq in 2003 and make the world a worse place? I hope no one.

I am thankful though that the US "won" the cold war and protects Taiwan, Japan, etc...

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

Do what, you mean like invade Iraq in 2003 and make the world a worse place? I hope no one.

I am thankful though that the US "won" the cold war and protects Taiwan, Japan, etc...

Doesn't matter...the U.S. didn't do it for your thanks. The U.S. is not Canada, with a need to be "loved by the world". More emigres still come to the U.S. anyway. Go figure.....

carepov · July 9, 2013

Nope....the election in 2004 reflected American attitudes and expectations at the time. Kosovo and Libya were child's play for the U.S.A's overall capability, and frankly, NATO entanglements can be a planning and execution pain in the ass.

If being "foolish" means being American, then I want to be very, very foolish.

OK, thankfully, American attitudes and expectations changed for the better since 2004.

So why doesn't the US pull out of NATO and other "entaglements" like the UN?

July 9, 2013

Do what, you mean like invade Iraq in 2003 and make the world a worse place? I hope no one.

Oh, but plenty of countries were behind that. Including Canada.

“We now have a coalition of the willing* who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing. And there are fifteen other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named, but will be supporting the coalition”

So that's 48 nations willing to own up to it and fifteen that weren't - but were supportive all the same. In fact, Canada was more supportive than just about any of the "willing."

I am thankful though that the US "won" the cold war and protects Taiwan, Japan, etc...

Good to hear.

carepov · July 9, 2013

Doesn't matter...the U.S. didn't do it for your thanks. The U.S. is not Canada, with a need to be "loved by the world". More emigres still come to the U.S. anyway. Go figure.....

I know, but am thankful anyways - especially to the members of the armed forces and their families for all their sacrifices. I just wish that their efforts weren't wasted on counter-productive wars like Iraq.

Well, the USA was "loved by the world" on 9/12/2001 and had the opportunity to greatly advance their own self-interests. I am glad that the electorate finally recognized the incompetence of the Republican administration.

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2013

OK, thankfully, American attitudes and expectations changed for the better since 2004.

So why doesn't the US pull out of NATO and other "entaglements" like the UN?

They will always change as determined by Americans, not onlookers. Another major attack will produce identical results.

The U.S. uses NATO and the UN for post Cold War purpose, even while acting unilaterally when desired. NATO had to find relevancy after the Soviets fell, and that means ignoring the UN when needed as well. It's a great "good cop - bad cop" framework.