ISIS Defeated?

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 02:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: The taliban was never gone. It had dwindled but it was NEVER gone. Which is my point it’s like cancer, it wasn’t cured only in remission. I stand by what I said we cannot defeat a foreign born organization inside their country. We can move them into remission but unless we plan to occupy every place indefinitely then it cannot be done. The ideology behind these organizations are deeply rooted in their own cultures and way off life in many cases. Guns and bombs can push it into hiding but it’s an ideology your really fighting.

"NEVER gone" might not be a realistic standard, if that means we have only won if there are no remaining stragglers.  The leadership and remaining fighters of the Taliban were driven to Pakistan in 2002, with stories of debilitating shock and awe. The US had done what the Soviets could not.  

That was not a victory for them, nor was it a tie. It was the defeat of the Taliban, in their own country, which they still do not hold. 

"Remission" in this case would be perfectly acceptable. And a win.

Your post gives me chance to articulate two important points with respect to AFGHANISTAN as apposed to Iraq, Syria, or Yemen.

 I. It is not an "ideology" which draws most Afghans to the Taliban, so it is a mistake to "fight ideology" there--except in the case of two transplants taking advantage of a broken state, and which have no real national appeal to Afghans.

A. The Deobandi ideology of Taliban leaders is not "rooted in Afghanistan" but from India and their beliefs are hardly shared by the rank and file.  The Darul Uloom Deoband in India is the only Islamic school I am aware of that supports the Taliban's interpretation of Islam. The only thing truly "organic" about Taliban ideology is the Pashtu code's defense of homeland from foreign invaders.

B. The Taliban have never been some uniform, ideologically cohesive military force. They are diverse groups who pledge personal loyalty to individual tribal leaders with very local support and interests, and who can be peeled away from the core group, and even folded into the government as has happened to other insurgents like Hekmatyr. Since 2013, they have separated into three different groups with three different leaders, one (under Mullah Niyazi) reportedly talking to Kabul now. It is not even clear which Taliban are really Taliban, and not simply other groups which have thrown in with them for temporary advantages but consider themselves a distinct political group.

C. On top of that the Taliban are primarily Pashtu and the rest of Afghanistan, some 53%, are not and are unwilling to live under raw Pashtu rule, especially one based on Deobandi.  If we don't bomb their weddings and kill their relatives, the majority of Afghans, including many Pashtu, will happily fight the Taliban rather than the US. When in power they could never gain full control or support of the country, and if the US left right now, it is doubtful the Taliban could retake Kabul.

II. As I stated above, the rise of the Taliban was--and continues to be--a response to insecurity. Many in the group were always ready to ditch them for something better.  Still are.  

A. On the white board, at least, it is simple: increase insecurity and you increase Taliban recruitment and create space for ISIS and Al Qaeda. Increase security, and you not only decrease recruitment but increase local will to resist the Taliban. 

B.  Off the white board, there is the problem of tribal mentality, which makes it difficult to train security forces which think in national rather than tribal terms, and there is a literacy problem, which makes it hard to train people at all. People raised in tribal/village culture are often difficult to integrate in to modern police/military organization. (Probably Bfine could back me up on this with personal observation.) These are the problems which we are addressing, but on a rather small scale compared to energy still devoted to kinetic military action.

C. There is also the problem of the US's military mentality and penchant for kinetic action, plus the acquiescence in warlordism in lieu of serious nation-building, which drive up the insecurity which drives up Taliban recruitment.  These are issues the US could address (Petraeus recognized the problem in part, trying to reduce the overuse of force), in part by reducing its military footprint in favor of programs which, for example, help farmers and build roads.  Most communities will also defend schools if a central government can provide and staff them.
................................

The ultimate goal here should not be to eradicate the Taliban. That is not what defines a "win."  A stunted Taliban, interested in controlling lpockets of territory on Paki border rather than attacking the US, is to me an acceptable outcome, even it perpetually wars with Kabul.

The goal is to create conditions in which foreign groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda cannot take root and thrive. If that is achieved, then that is a win and the blood spent was worth it.  And that goal is achievable if we stop supposing we have to defeat an "ideology" and instead make sure the majority of Afghan farmers, who have NO interest in carrying Jihad to the US, can produce and get their crops to market. 

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 05:04 PM)Dill Wrote: "NEVER gone" might not be a realistic standard, if that means we have only won if there are no remaining stragglers.  The leadership and remaining fighters of the Taliban were driven to Pakistan in 2002, with stories of debilitating shock and awe. The US had done what the Soviets could not.  

That was not a victory for them, nor was it a tie. It was the defeat of the Taliban, in their own country, which they still do not hold. 

"Remission" in this case would be perfectly acceptable. And a win.

Your post gives me chance to articulate two important points with respect to AFGHANISTAN as apposed to Iraq, Syria, or Yemen.

 I. It is not an "ideology" which draws most Afghans to the Taliban, so it is a mistake to "fight ideology" there--except in the case of two transplants taking advantage of a broken state, and which have no real national appeal to Afghans.

A. The Deobandi ideology of Taliban leaders is not "rooted in Afghanistan" but from India and their beliefs are hardly shared by the rank and file.  The Darul Uloom Deoband in India is the only Islamic school I am aware of that supports the Taliban's interpretation of Islam. The only thing truly "organic" about Taliban ideology is the Pashtu code's defense of homeland from foreign invaders.

B. The Taliban have never been some uniform, ideologically cohesive military force. They are diverse groups who pledge personal loyalty to individual tribal leaders with very local support and interests, and who can be peeled away from the core group, and even folded into the government as has happened to other insurgents like Hekmatyr. Since 2013, they have separated into three different groups with three different leaders, one (under Mullah Niyazi) reportedly talking to Kabul now. It is not even clear which Taliban are really Taliban, and not simply other groups which have thrown in with them for temporary advantages but consider themselves a distinct political group.

C. On top of that the Taliban are primarily Pashtu and the rest of Afghanistan, some 53%, are not and are unwilling to live under raw Pashtu rule, especially one based on Deobandi.  If we don't bomb their weddings and kill their relatives, the majority of Afghans, including many Pashtu, will happily fight the Taliban rather than the US. When in power they could never gain full control or support of the country, and if the US left right now, it is doubtful the Taliban could retake Kabul.

II. As I stated above, the rise of the Taliban was--and continues to be--a response to insecurity. Many in the group were always ready to ditch them for something better.  Still are.  

A. On the white board, at least, it is simple: increase insecurity and you increase Taliban recruitment and create space for ISIS and Al Qaeda. Increase security, and you not only decrease recruitment but increase local will to resist the Taliban. 

B.  Off the white board, there is the problem of tribal mentality, which makes it difficult to train security forces which think in national rather than tribal terms, and there is a literacy problem, which makes it hard to train people at all. People raised in tribal/village culture are often difficult to integrate in to modern police/military organization. (Probably Bfine could back me up on this with personal observation.) These are the problems which we are addressing, but on a rather small scale compared to energy still devoted to kinetic military action.

C. There is also the problem of the US's military mentality and penchant for kinetic action, plus the acquiescence in warlordism in lieu of serious nation-building, which drive up the insecurity which drives up Taliban recruitment.  These are issues the US could address (Petraeus recognized the problem in part, trying to reduce the overuse of force), in part by reducing its military footprint in favor of programs which, for example, help farmers and build roads.  Most communities will also defend schools if a central government can provide and staff them.
................................

The ultimate goal here should not be to eradicate the Taliban. That is not what defines a "win."  A stunted Taliban, interested in controlling lpockets of territory on Paki border rather than attacking the US, is to me an acceptable outcome, even it perpetually wars with Kabul.

The goal is to create conditions in which foreign groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda cannot take root and thrive. If that is achieved, then that is a win and the blood spent was worth it.  And that goal is achievable if we stop supposing we have to defeat an "ideology" and instead make sure the majority of Afghan farmers, who have NO interest in carrying Jihad to the US, can produce and get their crops to market. 

The government has offered to recognize the Taliban as an official political party....I'd call that an ideology. 

You talk about the tribal mentality, etc. That is kind of what I am talking about. We can't instill democracy and our idea of government in a place so set in previous ways and functions as it continues to be rejected. Anything short of spending one whole generation there holding their hand won't work, and frankly I don't think anyone is really interested in that here or there.

This kind of got sideways from ISIS but some of the same issues are present across the ME.

[*bfine32*]

We're talking about the JV here, right?

As to the matter; The only way ideologies like this are going to be "defeated' is through occupation. ever wonder why the Nazis didn't come back to Germany?

We are getting very close to Afghanistan being a culture that has had us there for a generation; hopefully the culture will start to change once those that grew up with US/coalition occupation move into positions of power. Currently an 18 year old in Afghanistan has never known his/her country without US occupation.

The day it was announced we were withdrawing from Syria, I knew it was a mistake, and said so in the very forum. But many are for our withdraw.

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We're talking about the JV here, right?

As to the matter; The only way ideologies like this are going to be "defeated' is through occupation. ever wonder why the Nazis didn't come back to Germany?

We are getting very close to Afghanistan being a culture that has had us there for a generation; hopefully the culture will start to change once those that grew up with US/coalition occupation move into positions of power. Currently an 18 year old in Afghanistan has never known his/her country without US occupation.

The day it was announced we were withdrawing from Syria, I knew it was a mistake, and said so in the very forum. But many are for our withdraw.

This is why we tend to help install new governments through back channels more than wars. Unless we have a desire to spend 20+ years somewhere you are going to struggle to maintain what you built otherwise. Sometimes installing those new governments means putting bad guys in control because you know there "evil" vs the possible evil that could take control. People will say that is shitty but it's kind of the way the world has worked for hundreds of years. Not everywhere can function as a democracy, and some places simply don't want it, and that is just hard for Western countries to accept sometimes.

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 02:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: Bin Laden flat out didn't want us there. In his interview he did with CNN he referenced the fact we were staging troops in Saudi Arabia during the war as one of the reasons he put a Jihad on us. Us staying didn't help, but us being there was a problem in itself.

My point was, we can't not intervene but our intervention at all could drive the next Bin Laden to come after us. It's possible that not all problems have realistic solutions.

I agree with the bolded, Au.  You are absolutely correct that it is possible some current apparent "success" in the ME has set some group seething and planning revenge.  And I think you are saying we can't let that imagined possibility prevent us from making sensible decisions based on the information we actually have, to which I also agree.

I am only aware of one CNN interview, conducted by AlJazeera's Tayweer Alouni in Feb. 2002. There he mainly talks about Western support for Israel and the deaths of Arab children in Palestine and Iraq.  These appear to be far more motivating than anything else.  The only references to US presence I can think of are general complaints about "continued" US presence on the Arabian Peninsula in his Letter to America and the Fisk interview from 1996.  Anyway, my point is that for him the larger problem is US power over the Muslim Middle East exercised in part by Arab governments who, in his view, do the US bidding.  The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is experienced as a special humiliation, yes, but it is a part of a larger whole, which he spends most of his time describing in his writings and interviews.  

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 05:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with the bolded, Au.  You are absolutely correct that it is possible some current apparent "success" in the ME has set some group seething and planning revenge.  And I think you are saying we can't let that imagined possibility prevent us from making sensible decisions based on the information we actually have, to which I also agree.

I am only aware of one CNN interview, conducted by AlJazeera's Tayweer Alouni in Feb. 2002. There he mainly talks about Western support for Israel and the deaths of Arab children in Palestine and Iraq.  These appear to be far more motivating than anything else.  The only references to US presence I can think of are general complaints about "continued" US presence on the Arabian Peninsula in his Letter to America and the Fisk interview from 1996.  Anyway, my point is that for him the larger problem is US power over the Muslim Middle East exercised in part by Arab governments who, in his view, do the US bidding.  The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is experienced as a special humiliation, yes, but it is a part of a larger whole, which he spends most of his time describing in his writings and interviews.  

I was referencing the 97 Peter Arnett interview. This was the actual interview where he declared the Jihad. In looking back at the transcript he did mention a couple other things as to why (Muslim world as a whole, etc), but for some reason in my mind the Saudi staging stood out.

[*bfine32*]

(01-18-2019, 05:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is why we tend to help install new governments through back channels more than wars. Unless we have a desire to spend 20+ years somewhere you are going to struggle to maintain what you built otherwise. Sometimes installing those new governments means putting bad guys in control because you know there "evil" vs the possible evil that could take control. People will say that is shitty but it's kind of the way the world has worked for hundreds of years. Not everywhere can function as a democracy, and some places simply don't want it, and that is just hard for Western countries to accept sometimes.

The has merit and you may ask yourself if the ME is more or less stable/westernized since Saddam Hussain was removed from power.

I still suggest nothing wrong with occupation; hell we're going on 70 years in Germany. Once the region experiences a truly Western culture in the ME; it'll grow like wildfire.

I know many of the folks over there fighting now are doing so in the hopes that their Children do not have to. I've often advocated moving permanent bases in the ME and remove them from Europe.

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 05:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: The government has offered to recognize the Taliban as an official political party....I'd call that an ideology. 

You talk about the tribal mentality, etc. That is kind of what I am talking about. We can't instill democracy and our idea of government in a place so set in previous ways and functions as it continues to be rejected. Anything short of spending one whole generation there holding their hand won't work, and frankly I don't think anyone is really interested in that here or there.

This kind of got sideways from ISIS but some of the same issues are present across the ME.

Well I agree with you on the bolded.  Afghanistan is not a "country" in the sense that France or China or Brazil are.  It is a claimed central government which controls Kabul, six or seven cities, and some valleys around them, all inside a much larger national territory filled with semi-autonomous tribal groups and people whose first allegiance is local and who don't think the government speaks for them. 

The US did begin recognizing this back in 2006-07, rather late, and has tried to build a government from more like the traditional sura system.

Again, I don't doubt the high leadership of the Taliban is "ideological" in your sense. They know they cannot integrate themselves into any kind of pluralist system of government.  I am just saying that this rigidity does not extend down very far into their ranks. Hence offers to join the government create fissures among the subgroups.  Create security and stability for trade, allow village and town self rule, and few will want some Taliban leader telling them how to wear their beards.  We don't have to defeat the Taliban if we can do that.

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The has merit and you may ask yourself if the ME is more or less stable/westernized since Saddam Hussain was removed from power.

I still suggest nothing wrong with occupation; hell we're going on 70 years in Germany. Once the region experiences a truly Western culture in the ME; it'll grow like wildfire.

I know many of the folks over there fighting now are doing so in the hopes that their Children do not have to. I've often advocated moving permanent bases in the ME and remove them from Europe.

We didn’t continue to suffer casualties in Germany 20 years after declaring victory which in itself I think shows how difficult Me conflicts have been for us. Permenant bases I think escalate the aggression.

[jj22]

(01-18-2019, 05:01 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: So, continue doing the same thing we’ve been doing for 60 years, that has been a miserable failure if less war and death is your goal or change strategies. I know which option I’m ready to try.

Outside of 9/11 I think fighting them at their home instead of ours has worked pretty well.

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We're talking about the JV here, right?

As to the matter; The only way ideologies like this are going to be "defeated' is through occupation. ever wonder why the Nazis didn't come back to Germany?.

Some would say they never completely left.

But they are not in power in part because their neighbors would not allow it and in part because the German people are prosperous and would not wish to trade that for another regime of war and destruction and blowback.

There was quite a bit more to this success than "occupation." There was also the Marshall plan, resolve to defend Germany in case of Soviet attack, and the eventual return of sovereignty.

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 06:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: We didn’t continue to suffer casualties in Germany 20 years after declaring victory which in itself I think shows how difficult Me conflicts have been for us. Permenant bases I think escalate the aggression.

That's because Germany was a country. When the government/army surrendered, then everyone followed suit down the chain of command (except for a couple of die hard Nazis here and there, who were still killing Americans up to four weeks after surrender).

There is no chain of command in Afghanistan that extends beyond a half dozen cities.  Iraq and Syria are more like Germany during the 30 years war, with differing "princes" contending against one another on a map that doesn't really have clear or rational national boundaries, as outside forces ally themselves with one faction or another for their own interests.

Permanent bases would escalate hostility in some places (southern Iraq, Yemen, Eastern Afghanistan) but reduce it in others (Northern Iraq, Qatar, NorthWestern Afghanistan, Bharain).

[*bfine32*]

(01-18-2019, 02:25 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Yeah, you’re talking to a veteran buddy. Please don’t lecture me on what the men and women are doing in the ME. I’ve been on their turf, they don’t want us there.

Who is this "they" you're referring to? 

[hollodero]

(01-18-2019, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the matter; The only way ideologies like this are going to be "defeated' is through occupation. ever wonder why the Nazis didn't come back to Germany?

Because the US gave the "new" Germany the tools to live in prosperity. That's the major reason.

[Yojimbo]

(01-18-2019, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is this "they" you're referring to? 

They refers to the majority of the population of the ME.

[jj22]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-targets-us-convoy-in-northeast-syria/ar-BBSwXMW?ocid=ientp

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2019, 02:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-targets-us-convoy-in-northeast-syria/ar-BBSwXMW?ocid=ientp

This is sad. Mad Dog was right to resign over this. I hope POTUS sees the error of his ways and steps up the coalition. 

[Dill]

(01-19-2019, 12:23 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: They refers to the majority of the population of the ME.

I don't think that's correct, Yoji.  No one wants the US to OCCUPY his country, anywhere.

But lot's of people in the Middle East want US forces there for security purposes.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2019, 04:17 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think that's correct, Yoji.  No one wants the US to OCCUPY his country, anywhere.

But lot's of people in the Middle East want US forces there for security purposes.

They also want us to dig wells and build schools. 

[Dill]

(01-21-2019, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They also want us to dig wells and build schools. 

If we broke their wells, and schools, I might be ok with that. 

If we are talking about Afghanistan, then I think that is money well spent if our goal is to make A-stan a place that can police itself.