Dear Haseeb:
Your posting is very interesting. I am a Canadian scholar who has published a book on Canada in Somalia ("Here is Hell") and is now working on Canada in Afghanistan. Have you published your research from the August 2007 trip, or can I read the raw report from which your posting was drawn? If so, please contact me via http://dawson.grant.googlepages.com. My e-mail address can be found there.

Grant Dawson, Ph.D.
Sessional Lecturer in Political Science
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada

I really do not doubt the legitimacy of Karzai.

If he asks the US for our help - I think that between the incorporation of his patriots and some US Marines and Army - we can remove the Taliban and Al Qaida.

I am against those organizations whose motives are to cash in on the opium fields - hands down. This isn't simply a fight against the Taliban; it is equally true that we are dealing with narco-terrorism. In this aspect, it is -and has been- America's business - much damage has been done by organized crime; thru the exploitation of Afghanistan's export of their number-one cash cow to the US. Other countries -too- are under the same menace.

Does Russia feel that opium/herion is in their best interests to defeat? They -too- feel the bite of that dragon! If the US AND Rusiia AND Karzai want to see changes that would benefit ALL of these counties - then we have a strong base of agreement for fighting the same thing.

That is a noble means to have the use of these forces to something positive - making governmets earn their keep by protecting their citizens from this crap.

The down side to this? Well, besides making junkies all over the world very sick (or have to pay more for their smack- or not getting any at all) - it allows/frees those who do not use this crap to become continually victimized by their vicious habit.

How bad are the addicts in Afghanistan going to deal with it? Is that significant when one considers the amount of damage and death it has done over many years? I think they can deal with that problem when they get to that point of the river...

Afghanistan should only produce enough opium to make for export pharmaceutical purposes. That will still need strick controls and perhaps NATO monitoring. This in Russia's best interest as well as the US - and the rest of the world!

Mr. Arkin, To understand the war in Afghanistan try looking at the Soviets failed occupation there and you'll see the exact same stupidity all over again. Only an idiot would ever have invaded that country. Only a sick twisted idiot would ever have invaded it for absolutely no other reason then private corporate gain which is the case now. A competent corporation and competent government would have paid for their lousy pipeline or used economic/political influence to get their silly way. To use the US armed forces was not only criminal but entirely idiotic.

In Afghanistan, it's about Russia, too.

Alomst 2000 years ago, a Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu, wrote: "Generally in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this." Now, compare this with our current disastrous military policy in Afghanistan. From the very beginning, the Bush administration has concentrated on destroying the Afghans pride and honor, bombing their villages, and humiliating the whole Afghan nation. From day one, Mr. Bush allied America's power and prestige with the most notorious elements of Afghan society whose misrule and atrocities helped the Taliban to take power in the first place. In short, our military strategy is centered on destruction and overwhelming firepower, a strategy that will never work in Afghanistan. The British tried it in 19th century, and they failed time and again. The Soviet tried it in late 20th century, they also failed miserably. Now, the Americans are trying it, and they are doomed, too.

Sun Tzu continues "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Now, how could we accept such wisdom from an administration which turned a perfect victory into a sound defeat in Afghanistan? This is a textbook example of incompetence. As Afghan history indicates, America is discovering an historical fact about Afghanistan that it is easy to invade Afghanistan, but it is awfully difficult to control.

Afghanistan's problem is political. The Bust administration erred from the very onset. In the Bonn conference, the Bush administration allied itself with the criminals of Northern alliance, and imposed a government on Afghanistan that is corrupt, ineffective and above all incompetent. Moreover, Mr. Bush started to play the ethic politics in Afghanistan. The Bush administration promoted the rule of minorities at the expense of Afghan majority. This is a dangerous process, and it will never prevail in Afghanistan.

In addition, the situation in Afghanistan will not change for the better unless America changes its policy toward Afghanistan. It is obvious that the Karzia's government cannot rule, cannot provide security, and cannot maintain its monopoly on the use of violence. Karzia is facing the crisis of legitimacy and trust. Most Afghans are appalled by his inability and his poor performance.

Tony Cordesman seems to have a totally different "take" on what the numbers say:
"The rise in the use of combat airpower in Afghanistan was driven both by a major increase in Taliban activity after 2005 and the lack of adequate NATO/ISAF and Afghan ground forces."

Mr. Cordesman does not mention a lack of sufficient air power, with the exception of surveillance: "As for the other indicators on the chart, there has also been a rise in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sorties since 2005. This rise, however, has been restricted by the fact that there were severe limits on the number of additional enabling aircraft that could be deployed. Had more assets been available, the rise might have been much higher."

Taken together the above two comments seem to conflict with the overall thrust of your post. It doesn't take a genius to reckon that the most likely explanation for a thirty fold increase in sorties dropping ordinance is that we are losing the battle on the ground.

Thanks for that insight - Haseeb

What does Karzai say about the strength and growth of AlQaida and the Taliban?

Are ther outside influences from other countries gaining contacts and helping the Taliban and Al Qaida?

Are there 'organizations' like the internation drug cartels changing the way opium is being sold and grown?

(Please forgive my ignorance, but I do not know who is keeping this business alive, but someone is willing and going to great lenths to put a lot of cash into the right places to ensure the opium does comes out - that is my point.)

Is there government corruption aligned with drug cartels?
Can you enlighten us to the situation and make it clearer?

I was interviewing an elder from Urozgan province this summer. (Urozgan is the province where airpower almost killed the soon to be President, Hamid Karzai, in 2001 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/six-years-ago-the-bomb-that-almost-killed-karzai/?hp). The old man, claiming to have been part of the elders who rallied behind Karzai in 2001, suggested I should tell him my 'honest opinion' on what side the 'foreigners' are on. He thought I knew better since I could speak their language, and interacted with them. He wanted to know if they (NATO and Operation Enduring Freedom forces) were in Afghanistan to help the Karzai government, or the Taliban. I was simply shocked by his question. I saw it for myself what it has come down to in Afghanistan: a local population that's confused by the presence of forces it once embraced as liberators, but still regards it--albeit the confusion--as necessary. And necessary because the alternative, chaos and total Taliban return, they consider deadly.

Ten bombs dropped on the right targets might kill three hundred Taliban, but one bomb dropped on a civilian area will cost image, sympathy, provoke revenge and foster doubt. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and NATO forces will save themselves headache if they helped the Afghan National Army (ANA) take lead. I have all the due respect for Mr. Arkin but I would like to say that he is shooting from the hip with this piece. I hope it won't come down to a 2015 article by Mr. Arkin reflecting on how wrong he was today.

o.k. arkin, spare me! the number of sorties quadrupled during the soviets' occupation of afghanistan too. did it do them any good? nooo.... has the number of air sorties done the civilian population of afghanistan any good considering the number of innocents killed? noooo.... not even road construction workers are safe from the inherent wisdom that the u.s. military leaders believe they themselves possess. and let's remember what all that air power did for us over europe and vietnam!!! how were the wars finally won? by boots on the ground. what the u.s really proposes to do is continue to fight the war in afghanistan the way the pentagon and our exalted leaders in washington have most often done recently: the gutless way!! we occupy only 40% of the entire country of afghanistan. sound familiar? those are the same figures we bragged about when the soviets were losing in afghanistan. we've done no better than they ever did and this fact must amuse them highly.

Corect me if I'm wrong,

Isn't it true that the Soviets once had the same idea that the American generals are having now?

And isn't it ironic that the Prez and the Allied forces cannot get the job done this time minus the presence of an opposing Superpower? Oops!!

This sounds like a war of attrition to me, and we know what that means - may justice prevail!

The Rev will always root for justice.

I don't think that Karzai is necissarily wrong, but he not necissarily right. I do think that he is aware that the largest cash crop in Afghanistan is opium and the added presence of US troops will create a larger internal conflict. It is not unreasonable to assume that 'hush money' is being paid to Karzai or members of his staff from these warlord/growers in order to keep these forces from affecting this flow.

Some of the Taliban funding comes from sympathetic warlords that need Taliban support if they are to contunue uninterrupted to make profits from this same illegal source.

Invariably, their products make it to markets in the US, which historically has done - and is doing - damage to US citzens and the ability of law enforcement to cope wuth the additional load. Both directly and indirectly; the sales affect our inner cities: drug-related overdose, theft, burglery, muggings and murder. As well as giving organized crime and street gangs profiteers undeclared monies that perpetuate the cycle of crime that has become perilous to many major US cities.

What can be done? I think that saturating the growing regions that have traditionally produced Afghanistan opium with flyers and notices in town that depict fire bombing and destruction to opium fields - using pictures and simple Pashtun/Pashto - for openers. This warning needs to be made clear and disseminated to the point of ad nauseum. This can be done well before the growing season is at hand - and is essntial. Which - by the way - is not far off; it would be a good idea to start the flyer program now.

Secondly, we need to provide these farmers alternative land use - to choose the varieties of seed and crops that do well in their particular soil, water, that climate permit.

Thirdly, international funding -or even NGO's- in this area will help provide and 'jump-start' this region to become exporters of legitimate crops that can be exported to foreign markets as well as consumed/traded by the locals.

Afghanistan can have a two-fold effect on this region and the US. If it planned with precision, dealt with by experts, and positive/negative feedback loop oversight to ensure that regional politics, racketeers, or oppertunists does not slow up or adapt to these new circumstances. Or from those who wish to cancel its well-meaning effects.

One must consider that we are walking into a region that spawns many ills to diverse politcal regions. I believe that it is as important to bushwhack the opium as well as hamstring the Taliban and its support of Al Qaida.

Boots on the ground. Planes in the sky. Think tank commanders in Washington. Warrior bloggers on the net, etc., etc...

W/O a clear strategy and matching tactics it's all futile. More than six years later and now we have allied Def Min saying we could lose the war against the 9/11 perpetrators? Get real. Going back to the 2001 tactics? It's the 2001 tactics that let the enemies escape and regroup! Now they are in untouchable sanctuary.

Where's Ike, U S Grant, ... when the country needs one?

==The president of Afghanistan has asked the US to reduce its use of air power, because there are too many civilian casualties that result.==

Oh, I don't think Mr. Karzai has much say in how foreign armies operate in his country. Pretty similar to Mr. Maliki in Iraq.

I am puzzled at the emphasis on air power.
The president of Afghanistan has asked the US to reduce its use of air power, because there are too many civilian casualties that result.
The information which is used to target the air strikes is flawed.
From the AP Wire:
"
NEW YORK, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants the U.S. military to limit airstrikes against insurgents because they are killing too many civilians, the Afghan leader says in a U.S. television interview.

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan fuel resentment of foreign forces and Karzai's Western-backed government. He has repeatedly asked U.S. and NATO troops to do everything they can to minimize civilian deaths.

"The Afghan people understand that mistakes are made. But five years on, six years on, definitely, very clearly, they cannot comprehend as to why there is still a need for air power," Karzai told CBS program "60 Minutes," in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday, according to a partial text released by the network.

Asked if he wanted less use of air power, Karzai said, "Absolutely. Oh, yes, in clear words and I want to repeat that, [there are] alternatives to the use of air force and I will speak for it again through your media."..."

Correction: strike 'exhausted'. Read 'met'

Bill:

Nixon's B-52 raids - as admitted by the N Vietnamese leader after the war - said that the relentless and intense US bombing ALMOST made them surrender. Had we continued to pummel the NV there would have been a victory - but at the cost of near destruction of the NV infrastructure.

The air power that we had then was quite formidable - but today is practically without peer. With the new statistics that have been posted - as to the amount of increase in sorties, one must speculate that as long as there are viable targets that have yet to be aquired - we cannot say that boots are going to win the day when the resources of air tactics and planning have yet to be exhausted. It is my belief, that intelligence has been difficult to obtain of Taliban operation bases.

In other words, the NV had targetable infrastucture while the Taliban is more integrated into the people and countryside. Boots become a means to draw the Taliban out of hiding amd air sorties take over. Useable and actionable intelligence seems to be what is lacking.

To divert sources from Iraq to the Afghan campain is being alluded to in your article. More 'bait'; is that the point of this discussion - really?

I think if we were to remove a couple of brigades from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan - it can only be accomplished if our commanders in Iraq are certain that it would not compromise American soldiers or upset the power struggle in Iraq. It is a basic military principle never to divide your forces in the face of the enemy. See: Strategy 101

As in Frank's comment about winning the "conflict phase" or winning the "stabilization phase" airpower plays a huge part in the conflict and smaller part in the stabilization. However, what is missing is the fact that "boots-on-the-ground" (BOTG) does not guarantee victory in either. The issue is that the US Army and Marine Corp senior leadership (read Col and above) have used these conflicts to present the argument that without BOTG you can not win. Reality is you can win both phases without BOTG - see Kosovo!!

It's the same thing as in Iraq - unless Afghan central government wins legitimacy and establishes state control on use of force, which means no warlords, the Western expeditionary force can fight this thing forever, or at least until the money runs out.

Airpower has proven it's role in helping to fight and win battles in armed conflict.

But airborne weapon platforms have a much more diminished role in winning the peace.

Only "boots on ground" -- military, State, NGO, commerce, UN, medical/dental/health, education -- working in unison to rebuild a society (not destroy it) can win peace.

So the question for Arkin. Are we still fighting a war in Afghan? Or are we trying to win the peace?