really complete rethink about Afghanistan, but that will take time. First I've got to ride out this horrific raki-induced hangover.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

Enough to keep me away from the Arak (mostly) and I do love good Lebanese Arak - in moderation: respectful, cautious, experience-driven moderation [ugh stomach's roiling just remembering, my sympathies].

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Although our domestic concerns are of importance to me I have argued, with you, that our continued involvement in places like Afghanistan can only have the results SP writes of unless and until we completely reform the way our military forces do business. Insofar as this is patently unlikely at any time within which our continued involvement takes place I favor withdrawal. We have a far better chance of reforming our diplomatic and aid side than we do our military.

Much like any other raging force of nature we have done our harm. If we stick around any longer we will continue to compound that harm. Because we are people, not nature, we have a continuing obligation but it is one that our military is simply incapable of fulfilling at this time. Just like after any storm it is up to the Afghans and the Iraqis to clean up after our mess. I would rather try a civilian Marshall Plan, with its attendant risks, than risk doing more military harm.

...the prospects of a population-centred COIN campaign is in my view reflective of exactly the type of military reform that you speak of. US forces, and to lesser extent coalition forces, have learned a great deal about waging war more effectively in this context. The overriding question is whether we have the resources - and more immediately, the will to do so with any prospect of success. My view, the Taliban have been granted so much breathing space and have developed so much capability that "easy" approaches that could have yielded relatively decisive outcomes are no longer tenable and we are left with quite a bad set of potential approaches that at best lead to much less decisive outcomes.

Of all the strategies that I have seen on offer I lean most towards a modified Dorronsoro approach - giving clear indications that a drawdown of our forces is inevitably going to occur, thinking very hard about what areas we can hold and which we can't, and focusing on building native Afghan institutions and capabilities so that they have a chance of countering the Taliban. Notably what this leads to is not a massive military "surge" aimed at the south and east but rather a statement that we are willing to be engaged at a moderate level over the long term. This to occur in conjunction with the type of civilian engagement you seek. Such civil side development is crucial, but it can be pretty much guaranteed that said civilian engagement isn't going to occur without some sort of military component - without security all that happens is the aid workers provide easy pickings for the Taliban.

As an aside, the problem with the "force of nature" analogy is that it presupposes that only staying causes harm, while leaving does not. There's abundant evidence that this is not the case - look to the events of '96, for instance.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

as Empires go, the United States presence wasn't overly lengthy. Empires do horrific things. What will the future China's be like and for how long? Might rapid communication help mitigate the damage it can do?

Believe the world is very aware of every death that the United States caused. That wasn't the case in the past.

The days of troops being cannon fodder are long gone. The world does revolve slowly, but it does make turns for the betterment of societies.

Women in advanced countries have only had the vote for less than 100 years. Less advanced countries are getting nearer despite strong objections erupting into violence as older ideas are being uprooted. Modern societies still have a long way to go. Judgement about the world's progress need waylaying. Is the glass half-empty or half-full? depends on perspective.

I assume you are responding to my Marshall Plan reference above. I used the term loosely. I was responding to Dave's undoubtedly correct idea that we owe something to these nations that we have ravaged. He argues that it requires a continued military presence. I believe that is impossible given the current organization and mission of our military without causing incredible additional harm. Thus the suggestion that a purely civilian approach be tried using some form of aid and without military involvement to help make reparation for the harm that we have caused.

It is obvious that this is different than post WWII. But unless you believe that Dave is wrong about our owing something to the people we have attacked largely without cause, what, short of military activity do you propose that we do?

... you will notice that Mahmoud fought the Taliban hard before "friendly fire" killed most of his family. The Northern alliance was barely holding their ground against them before the US intervention.

Abandoning the country to the Taliban would be yet another betrayal. And if you don't have a military presence there this will be the ultimate outcome. No amount of civilian assistance would cover that up.

That would indeed be a betrayal. But isn't that betrayal a little less odious than actually killing his family. After all they did have the capacity to fight the Taliban and chose to do so and survived until we came along. Again it seems unlikely to me that our military can be reorganized to effectively fight this "war." Certainly it does not appear at all likely in the next 5 or so years. The consequence is that we will go on killing "Mahmouds' family". What then is to be done?

... would greatly reduce the chances of the kind of "accident" that killed Mahmoud's family.

Currently it is deliberate policy to hit targets from afar and to shrug off the "collateral damage". This has to stop. It is politically expedient to just use imprecise air force because the US public never gets a look at the actual pain inflicted and no US soldiers can get hurt in the process. It is exactly the kind of war the US would continue maybe even step up if all ground troops were to be removed from Afghanistan.

What makes you think we would give up our extreme use of air power? In how many wars will we see its negative "collateral consequences," from the standpoints of both bombee and bomber, before we can give it up? Would the Air Force tolerate this loss of place?

...HRW report on civilian casualties due to airstrikes in Afghanistan. The contributing factors are to a very, very large extent about not having enough people on the ground. These aren't random or constant events - there are systemic causes that can be addressed and attempts are ongoing right now to do so. I don't expect the absolute numbers to decline to any appreciable degree in the near future, given that this fighting season is likely to be quite intense, but the number of civilian casualties per "unit of conflict" [for lack of a better term] has declined over the course of the war.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

If you pull out your ground troops the likelihood for excessive American air force use increases. As long as you have soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan there is a less invasive and more targeted venue for force application.

Essentially I think the simplified formula goes like this:

More American troops in Afghanistan = More US casualties but less Afghan civilians killed

Less or no American troops in Afghanistan = Less/no US casualties, more reliance on air force, hence more Afghan civilians killed

Iraq air raids hit mostly women and children

Report urges review of military strategy when targeting urban areas

By Kim Sengupta, Defence correspondent

Growing anger over civilian casualties caused by air raids in another front of the “war on terror”, Afghanistan, has led to the US, UK and their Nato partners reviewing their policy of using warplanes. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, recently said this had become the most contentious issue between him and Western powers.

From 2004 to 2007, the overall tonnage of munition dropped from planes in the Afghan conflict rose from 163 tonnes a year to 1,956 tonnes, an increase of 1,100 per cent. Since 2001 the US air force has dropped 14,049 tonnes of bombs in Afghanistan and 18,858 in Iraq

Important to note that the stats are drawn from the cases where they have sex and age data, which represent a relatively small minority of the fatalities for most causes of death. For example, for air attacks they were able to identify sex for 564 fatalities and age for 703 fatalities, out of a total of 2,363. If there's any bias in the reporting those percentages could shift somewhat - worth noting that the authors of the study highlight it, if the piece above does not. [As a contextual thought, I would point out that if civilian deaths due to aerial attack are collateral or accidents, the demographic profile should look a lot like the civilian population as a whole - that it diverges to the extent that it does indicates that there is some care being taken in targeting.]

Study available here [pdf].

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

... the realities of this multi-faceted world. Just a total bandwidth dominance of US produced content. I think this is a real problem. Just due to SP's account did this Afghan war become a lot more real for many people who hang out on this site.

These stories need to be told and they should also be fictionalized on TV and in movies to reach a wider audience - alas it ain't happening with a naval gazing Hollywood.

they only gaze at navels because navels are half way between the breastesses and paradise on earth.
hollywood reflects crass instincts because crass instincts sell.
whether it's ego, youth, beauty, health or sex. hollywood packages it for you in one easy technicolor swallow.
(I'm currently touristing in Hollywood, where they answer the hotel phone, "What is your wish today?" it's kinda creepy, but I'm tempted to make one, but the ocean is calling)

Write this down on a visible body part for frequent reference: "International events are not well explained by focusing exclusively on white guys". As penance ;), read [or re-read] as I have been Rashid's Taliban and contemplate how exquisitely Pakistan (as an example of the agency of non-white guys, rich or otherwise) absolutely fucked their Afghanistan policy over an extended period and sowed the vast majority of the seeds for their current instability. Well worth the reflection. My view, it's difficult enough understanding the complexities without wasting time going snark hunting. Snarks are entertaining but don't ultimately contribute much to one's understanding - take it from one who's been there and pissed time down those holes.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

eom