Time to Leave Afghanistan

Time to Leave Afghanistan

21 January 2012

This war is going to turn out badly. We are wasting lives and resources while the United States decays and other threats emerge.  We led the horse to water.

Importantly, there is no value in pretending that Pakistan is an ally. We should wish the best of luck to the Afghans, and the many peaceful Pakistanis, and accelerate our withdrawal of our main battle force. The US never has been serious about Afghanistan. Under General Petraeus we were starting to gain ground, but the current trajectory will land us in the mud.


The enemies will never beat us in Afghanistan.  Force on force, the Taliban are weak by comparison.  Yet this is their home.  There is only so much we can do at this extreme cost for the many good Afghan people.  We must reduce our main effort and concentrate on other matters.  Time to come home.

Sincerely,
Michael Yon

Tags:

Join the Conversation

The amount of time, blood, and treasure we have spent on Afghanistan would suggest it poses a major threat to our national security interests, when in fact it does not. We’ve seriously degraded the core leadership of al-Qaeda and killed bin Laden; we’ve accomplished our original goals. It’s time we begin transitioning out and balance the Taliban threat with local allies and limited military incursions to remove potential threats to our interests.

Why could we not realize this back in 2009, or 2010 when the “dream team” of coin experts giddily argued for Petraeus Surge version 2?

Better yet why could we not realize this back in early 2002 after we had fairlry well stomped AQ, our only true enemy in the region?

The real lesson from this past decade? Joseph Tainter’s concept of energy expenditure developed in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies (1990).

We, as a people, have a finite amount of energy to use. While some have argued that we’ve wasted blood and treasure in these endeavors, the problem is actually greater: we’ve expended massive amounts of energy (intellectual capital, time, resources).

There is a point of diminishing returns that happens quickly after a regime change where any additionally external effort (COIN, CT, Nation-building, etc) is scaled back exponentially.

Consider how much effort has been placed into these wars for limited gains, and then compare that by asking the question

Where could we be better expending our energy?

Funny how the military accpets felons in the time of need but denys them when the war is over!! The military can suck a fat one!!! They use pepole!! Fine by me let all the people with no charges or with degrees die for all I care.. LOL

That’s an excellent point and most often we direct it at the individual level, cautioning leaders about doing too much etc — we say “manage your time”, “manage and properly set your priorities” but what we really mean is to manage your energy level/expenditure. I think the same applies to a nation or organization that is supporting a war.

No, I’d argue we have other enemies (states with big time support for Al Q don’t give me the warm-and-fuzzies) in the region but a minimalist approach is best with a focus on Al Q and groups associated with Al Q (which includes at least some of the Talibans supported by the ISI).

But I agree with your larger point. Military options are not the best. There are non-military ways to handle this and that would be best, IMO.

Er, with non-military I meant the state support such as by ISI. Again, I agree with the rest of your comment.

Lots of people changed their minds and didn’t give a big explanation as to why:

This tells me that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen. Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack about a shift in strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was ruthless, and they were not about to do the George Casey thing whereby a commander is left in the theater long after he is considered to have grown ineffective…
.
The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan’s head for some time now. Many of the people with whom I have spoken do not think that McKiernan “gets” the war in Afghanistan — or counterinsurgency warfare in general. There was very little confidence that — with McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan — we the United States had the varsity squad on the field./
— Dr. Andrew Exum
http://​www​.registan​.net/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​7​/​2​9​/​t​he-…

In a Military​.com article, in 2009, GEN. McKiernan was quite explicit about Pakistani safe havens:

” “Until (militant) safe havens are eliminated across the border in Pakistan, there cannot be peace in Afghanistan,” he said, generating enthusiastic applause from the elders.
.
U.S. and Afghan officials say that Taliban militants use lawless areas in northwest Pakistan as safehavens to train, arm and rest. Insurgents then travel back over the Afghan-Pakistan border to launch attacks.
.
Afterward, several Afghan elders spoke. One picked up on McKiernan’s Pakistan message.
.
“When you come here and the Taliban is pushed out, why doesn’t the violence stop? Destroy their safe havens,” the Afghan said. ” http://​www​.military​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​m​c​k​i​e​r​n​a​n​-af…

The Afghan surge was always going to be a losing proposition because it fed the very dynamic it was meant, theoretically, to dampen. And as a civilian I want to know why so many people within the military, people at the highest levels, believed what they did about Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is nothing in the history of the region to support the assertions outside of poor quality writing on the subject within Think tankistan and the propaganda of those who wished to continue mil-mil relationships, arms sales, or other geostrategic objectives.

“The Pakistani report is sure to further sour US/Pakistan relations, which are at an all-time low since the Mohmand clash. Pakistan closed down NATO’s supply routes for Afghanistan; ejected the US from the Shamsi Air Base, where drone strikes against al Qaeda were staged; and has said it is reevaluating its cooperation with the US in the War on Terror. The US placed the drone program on hold for 55 days before targeting al Qaeda on Jan. 11. There have been two other strikes since.” — Bill Roggio, Long War Journal Read more: http://​www​.longwarjournal​.org/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​s​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​1​/pa…

OTOH, it’s okay for me to complain but maybe people in charge should stay mum on the subject and just pay up until we are safely withdrawn. No point in making things worse.

All I know, Madhu, is that I’m on Day 2 of asking Mike Yon to explain how in late September everything was going swimmingly and we were winning the war and today he’s calling for an immediate withdrawal of all troops because we’ve lost.

Something seems a bit off with that and I think that he owes his readers here (I don’t give a poop about his website’s readers) a little more than a shrug and “I said so.”

It’s intellectually dishonest.

We should had gone in whipped some but of those who needed it an been out of there. Like Iraq we were there way to long and personally see I see no reason fro being there in the first place! A-Stan is way past time to leave and say it has not been that fun!

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement