[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

I don’t see this as an assumption of Taliban coming back to Afghanistan if the International community pulls out in full, it will especially happen in every Pashtun area. This is where Taliban has their internal base within Afghanistan now.

Are you saying you see it as a "fact"? Anything to do with guessing about the future would be an assumption- but, as you state here, many- including ISAF and RAND and others state it as a fact. IJC and RC planners are notorious for this. And, worse- they don't identify all of their assumptions nor develop metrics to test these assumptions, so- we theoretically are continuously banging our head against reality, but don't have anything in place to test our assumptions to understand this reality. We just keep on blindly following the latest COIN tactical theory fad and wondering why nothing important is improving (like the Afghan forces taking over responsibility). Of course, this doesn't stop us from spinning metrics to make them look good.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

What in fact are the strategic plans of the U.S. for the entire central Asia States and region?

GREAT question. I'd submit there is none- or it is very short-term and not very "strategic". The Chinese and others are running circles around us in the CAS and we (I'd argue because our pols and populace are ignorant, hubristic, naive, and apathetic) are trying to play t-ball in a major-league environment. I'd argue part of the issue in Afghanistan is that regional power politics are in play- but our State Dept. structure has never made it easy for us to develop a regional policy. It is similar to LTG Rodriguez (IJC) conducting a "district-centric" fight while much of the environment (outside of the cities) is more tribal-centric (village/valley-centric?), NATO is pushing for a more Provincial-centric effort, and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) and the International Community (IC) favor a Kabul-centric/city-centric focus. We are concentrating on a supposed terrorist threat in an area that has no de facto borders, ethnicity is more important than nationality, and regional interests and local powerbrokers are much of the gravity that weighs on "why things happen". Meanwhile we're stuck on "people-centric" when the people don't and haven't traditionally held any power or influence in this area. So, great- we avoid bombing them- but that doesn't stop them from supporting guys that put IEDs in the road...

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

I think also within the military, both SOF and Conventional, we have Officers that have done two or three trips at ground leaders (Officers) and now are at the staff levels and they feel that they know what is going on.

It's worse than that, brother. We have guys who have never done a tour in Afghanistan and never been on the ground in any country, sitting in air-conditioned (or heated now) cubicles all day and on day one are asking for a pack of gum so they can show everyone how to chew it. That wouldn't be that bad- but these are the guys writing our operational and strategic plans (although there's an argument to be made that no-one is working anything strategic in Afghanistan). They simplify everything to two options- a worse case and a best case- argue for a Course of Action (COA) that will supposedly help us avoid the worst case and never i.d. the assumptions backing up their worst case scenario.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

It is vital for policy makers to understand—some of the very tribal leaders we seek to influence in our efforts against the Taliban are actually threatened by our support of Karzai’s Government.

I think many people understand this, but that rocket has left the stratosphere already. The IC and NATO back a central government. There is much political pressure to create an Eden (or a Denmark/Sweden/Netherlands- take your pick) in Afghanistan- with human rights, womens rights, gay rights, etc. Many politicos see Afghanistan as the ultimate test for NATO's continued existence. Some see it as a chance to "really" nation-build- not like the U.S. did in Iraq (badly according to our Euro sisters), but legitimately: with the UN, NATO, EUPOL, etc.- all singing kumbaya together. So, in short- they don't care about the issue: they want to change Afghanistan and the culture of the Afghans- and worse, they think they can.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

We have not gone into NWFP and FATA to attack the known Taliban and Al Qeada locations and Madrassas are; we could drop a shit tin of hell overnight if we wanted too. But we can’t IMO, Why?

Now we can get to the thing no-one seems to admit or take into account: U.S. internal politics. This is the 14,074,544,583,361 (3 extra credit points for why that number is relevant) pound guerrilla in the room (pun intended) The U.S. population doesn't link AQ or the Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan to a domestic threat to us anymore. Polling shows 81% of Americans think we should start withdrawing this summer or earlier. Only 35% favor being there now. And this has been a steady trend for some time now. The Democrats in power want us out now and were against the surge. The President has announced we will start withdrawing this summer. The VP has continuously said it may start sooner. With all of that- I couldn't imagine any politician trying to make the case that we need to send troops into Pakistan. It is just not politically feasible at this point. We had our chance in 2002/2003. We chose to go into Iraq. It's a little late now- we've lost the support, both politically and monetarily. Many in the military continue to have a pipe dream that we can show progress by this summer and keep the "surge" troops. All of the HQs are still asking for more troops. "Just one more year"- we keep hearing, plus "10,000 more troops" (along with additional support personnel/equipment, of course). We heard last year that we only had one year to turn things around- before the report due to Congress in DEC. Now we are hearing we only have 6 months. Then what? Then either the President starts withdrawing combat troops and we start transitioning to Afghan lead, or... NATO pulls out, Karzai begs for 3 more years (2014 everything will be hunky-dory for some reason), and the American people vote whoever is in office out (that's an assumption I'm making, btw). With a year and a half left until the next election- what politician today would risk going against 83% of the population (or more- since this is the # for Afghanistan)??

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

So if the U.S. Pulls out of Afghanistan will the Taliban and Al Qeada come back and control Afghanistan? YES they will. Not only Afghanistan but Pakistan, and other Central Asia States - AQ is there now is some form. Taliban will rise faster, but Al Qeada will sit back and feed Taliban for many years before stepping in full. Al Qeada has base of operations elsewhere. Not to mention Iran influence (Qods) inside Afghanistan and the region.

I respectfully disagree with this assumption- as well as the way you worded it: "yes they will". I agree it is a possibility, but not guaranteed. Unfortunately that is the way our HQ words the same assumptions- and shuts out any debate or alternative possibilities. "The district focus is the only way to win in Afghanistan"- stated as a fact. "The people are the Center of Gravity in Afghanistan"- stated as a fact. "The people just want good governance" and, my favorite: "If they had good governance the insurgency would die". None of these are stated as assumptions and therefore we don't try to figure out if they are correct assumptions or not. Our metrics look for trends that something is improving- and we latch on to those that look like they are (or re-interpret them to show that they are) and go on our merry blind way, refusing to hear that we aren't even the emperor- much less that we are naked.

Since, as you state, AQ has ops elsewhere- I don't think we should focus so much attention on Afghanistan- and I don't think we should focus on the Taliban. There are Taliban fighters in RC-N fighting HIG fighters- none of that has to do with taking over Afghanistan or attacking the U.S. It has everything to do with two local groups not liking each other. But, we are involved because it is a metric that could be interpreted as negative to someone- and that might upset the appearance of progress (and heaven knows we cannot withdraw if things don't look good).

COMISAF has one mission right now: make things on paper look as good as they did in Iraq so that it can be politically feasible to leave. The press won't hear a soldier drop in the woods if it isn't a U.S. soldier- so as long as we can support GIRoA and the ANSF enough to keep AQ from hitting us from Afghanistan- we can declare victory. All that will take is some SOF, some trainers, and a whole lot of money and equipment (although not nearly what we are spending now: for every American soldier we send home we can fund something like 20-50 (??) Afghan soldiers/police, I think). And if things turn bad- we can always come back with a killer surge force (the "Biden" plan anyone?). Bottom line: we've got more threats to our security at home (our economy) than we do in Afghanistan right now- and no-one right now can convince our populace that we will change anything in Afghanistan no matter what we do.