Home | About | Donate

Why the Next Afghan "Surge" Won't Work Either


#1

Why the Next Afghan "Surge" Won't Work Either

Danny Sjursen

We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t -- at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single file was our best bet.

The reason was simple enough: improvised bombs not just along roads but seemingly everywhere. Hundreds of them, maybe thousands. Who knew?


#2

Ive read that Afghanistan is where empires go to die because they have never been defeated going all the way back to the Roman empire. It is however taking a huge toll on the population and disrupting the natural balance created over thousands of years. For the first time ever there is a growing heroin addiction problem there among the millions of displace people.

My best to the author, well said.


#3

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Einstein


#4

The Iraq surge, Afghan surge and whatever other surges in which the US engages work just fine for their intended purpose of sustaining an eternal revenue stream for the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC).

ENDING occupations and wars is sooooooo twentieth century.

Load up on MIMIC stock and enjoy the 21st century !


#5

If anything describes the Siamese twins known as the duopoly, it's their mutually reinforcing fealty to our perpetual war machine. That Trump won on an isolationist platform, but has since gone right into escalation is quite the non-shocker.


#6

Why the Next Afghan "Surge" Won't Work Either

For the M/I/I Complex, it worked like a charm. A 300 billion arms sale to Saudis and 40 billion for Yemen, plus a trillion dollar B-35 and much more. Boom times.

As the Mafia would say before killing you, "its just business".


#7

There is one logical fallacy that the author has accepted, one that I think would break down a lot of the confusion and paralysis regarding Afghanistan. It recalls to me a remark by an American Vietnam War veteran, who said some years ago that there was only one problem in Vietnam. "We were on the wrong side."

The whole Afghan adventure, it seems to me, post 2001, has been predicated on a vast bait and switch. Come for Al Queda- stay for the Taliban.

The Taliban were never America's enemies. They were enemies of Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and the drug lords. They hosted Al Queda, but grudgingly. They never threatened or attacked the United States. So why a decades-long war to prevent them from participating in the politics of their own country?

The answer to the Afghanistan quagmire is here. Stop shooting at the Taliban.

They live there. Some day they will run their own country. Figure out a way to let them do it now,.

Stop shooting at the wrong guys.