Going 'deep', not 'big', in Afghanistan (I hope they read this!)

[Are_grits_groceries]

WASHINGTON - A veteran United States Army officer who has served in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars warns in an analysis now circulating in Washington that the counter-insurgency strategy urged by General Stanley A McChrystal is likely to strengthen the Afghan insurgency, and calls for withdrawal of the bulk of United States combat forces from the country over 18 months.
<snip>
Providing the additional 40,000 troops that Gen McChrystal reportedly requested "is almost certain to further exacerbate" that problem, he warns.

Davis was a liaison officer between the Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-A) and the Central Command in 2005, just as the Afghan insurgency was becoming a significant problem for the US military. In that assignment he consulted with the top US officers and staff of the CFC-A and traveled widely throughout Afghanistan visiting US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) combat units.
<snip>
The "Go Deep" strategy proposed by Davis would establish an 18-month time frame during which the bulk of US and NATO combat forces would be withdrawn from the country. It would leave US Special Forces and their supporting units, and enough conventional forces in Kabul to train Afghan troops and police and provide protection for US personnel.

The forces that continue to operate in insurgent-dominated areas would wage "an aggressive counterterrorism effort" aimed in part at identifying Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives. The strategy would also provide support for improved Afghan governance and training for security forces.
<snip>
Challenging the argument of supporters of a larger war effort that it is necessary to avoid an increased risk of new terrorist attacks, Davis argues that being "myopically focused" on Afghanistan "at the expense of the rest of the world" increases the likelihood of an attack.

The present level of US military involvement in Afghanistan, he writes, will "make it more likely that terrorist organizations will take advantage of the opportunity to plan and train elsewhere for the next big attack".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ17Df03.html

There is a lot more in the article. Davis says he has been contacted by people in DC who share his views.

We want to get Al Qaeda. We shouldn't be building a nation that resists change and always has.

McChrystal is supposed to be the big Special Ops man, so let him use his skills.

[elocs]

1. If the Afghans want their country they have to want it more than the insurgents want to take it.

If we arm, back, and support the Afghanis they should be able to defeat the Taliban or Al Qaeda since there is no world superpower backing them.

[RC]

2. It doesn't take a superpower.

All it takes is a country... Or a company like Halliburton or Blackwater.

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. Did you read the entire article?

In addition, how long do you think it will take to defeat them? I'm talking about the Taliban. They are making serious moves in Pakistan.

We will be there forever trying to put anything together. Karzai's government is corrupt and the people don't like him. They don't like us either. What's to say they won't turn and shoot our asses off at some point?

The terrain is horrendous to fight in. The Taliban knows it back and forth. I'm not sure who wants to go after them.
They can stay holed up in those valleys and hills or over the border in Pakistan.

[elocs]

6. No I didn't, that's my opinion. If they Afghanis do not want their country badly enough

they will never have it and we can stay there forever.

[AllentownJake]

4. Explain to me again what threat the Taliban are to me in Allentown?

[valerief]

5. They're a reason to syphon Treasury money into "national security" pockets, I believe. nt