Posted on Aug 23, 2017
How New is the New Afghanistan Strategy? - Modern War Institute
1.86K
5
9
3
3
0
"Ultimately, an effective strategy is the goal, but an integrated one is a vital means to help get us there. In that respect, the president was right to specifically highlight it in his speech. That said, getting the right mix means finding the right balance of funding, and a number of recent secretaries of defense have all argued that other, non-DoD organizations are critically underfunded. Under the administration’s proposed budget, funding for State Department and USAID would decrease by 32 percent. Given Trump’s recognition that “military power alone cannot bring stability to Afghanistan,” this poses perhaps the greatest challenge to overcome in the pursuit of an optimally integrated strategy."
How New is the New Afghanistan Strategy? - Modern War Institute
Posted from mwi.usma.eduPosted in these groups: 
Strategy
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan
Warfare
Foreign Policy
Strategy Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan Warfare Foreign Policy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Reading the history of Afghanistan, there has never been an outside army to win a battle in that area. Why does the brass think we can win in there now? I try to learn from history, not repeat it. We would do better to surround the country and stop everything in or out, except food and medical supplies. Like we did Cuba in 1963.The weapons would become useless without rounds to fire, both hand guns, rifles, and RPGs. Safe for our troops also. Fewer casualties, especially civilians. Make Afghanistan a no fly-zone for everybody., so the only way in is by land transport, which can be checked easily.
(1)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
Would say that "Never been an outside army to win a battle in that area to be a statement easily disproved by history". There was Alexander the great of course - and how long did Bactria stand after him? And then the Scythian invasion overwhelmed them..... today that is the majority population - just with a modern name. Then there were the Mongels, and then the Uzbeck version of the Mongels. Each fought several battles in Afghanistan and conquered it........ and then had to deal with the aftermath of trying to rule it. uch can be learned from them - why trade routes are important - how religion and people intermixed, water, and where rebellions always came about.. Now modern armies have won battles - but who has been able to rule remains a question.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC Eric Udouj I think we've been very good at showing that the military, on its own, cannot solve the issue. It will take diplomatic means, too. By military, I'm focusing mainly on the fighting aspect. We can assist w/ building up what has been torn down.
That being said, we also need to be conscious about how much money we are pouring into the country.
That being said, we also need to be conscious about how much money we are pouring into the country.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
It's a fresh coat of paint on the same old turd.
1. How long we stay in Afghanistan is determined by politics, when the political cost of staying in Afghanistan is too high we will leave. The Taliban understands that fact.
2. The Taliban isn't going anywhere... why should they make any major concessions when they know we will eventually leave?
3. IMO, we have had the necessary leverage for the past 16 years..., we simply haven't had the political will to use it. I doubt that has really changed.
4. Strengthening our relationship with the worlds largest Democracy is a good thing, however last I checked... India doesn't border Afghanistan. I don't see how India can have any direct impact on the situation.
1. How long we stay in Afghanistan is determined by politics, when the political cost of staying in Afghanistan is too high we will leave. The Taliban understands that fact.
2. The Taliban isn't going anywhere... why should they make any major concessions when they know we will eventually leave?
3. IMO, we have had the necessary leverage for the past 16 years..., we simply haven't had the political will to use it. I doubt that has really changed.
4. Strengthening our relationship with the worlds largest Democracy is a good thing, however last I checked... India doesn't border Afghanistan. I don't see how India can have any direct impact on the situation.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LTC Eric Udouj - Obama didn't exactly hold back when it came to running military missions in Pakistan. If Trump steps up that tempo while also cozying up to India, we could wind up in direct conflict with a Nuclear Power that has been received tens of billions in military aid from us since 9/11.
(0)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
SSG (Join to see) - Obama conducted an attack on Pakistan soil without telling them.... and they got angry. But he did not call them out in such a manner as this - despite several others doing so - the POTUS did not. We need India as an ally more than we need to keep throwing money to the bottomless pit in Pakistan. But direct conflict with us and Pakistan is not going to happen.. that is one of those items that all realize already... but understand that Pakistan is an allie of China now too.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LTC Eric Udouj - My impression is that Obama struck at Taliban and Haqqani forces within Pakistan on a regular basis, he simply didn't make a big fuss over it and force the Pakistani government to react to it.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
As for cozying up to India and drying up aid to Pakistan, that isn't really a new strategy either: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pakistan-aid-idUSKCN1110AQ
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google