America has been Defeated in Afganistan

[cav scout]

Your "nonsense" is belied by the treatment by US military of Iraquis and Afghans alike. Your regular GI has no knowledge of the locals (yes, same as in Vietnam), nor are they iclined to increase what little knowledge they have. That shouldn't be surprising seeing as the worldview of the average American usually ends at the US borders. But to give an actual example without referring to the treatment of prisoners and dead Afghans featred so prominently in the media, when the Dutch froces left their region in Afghanistan, the US took over. The first thing they did was totally ignore the relations the Dutch military had diligently been building up with local Afghans and strike a deal with the local warlord - because, obviously, that's how you "win the locals". Sound familiar?

Jeelen- I might be one those dumb American "regular GIs" but I'd wager my Dari is better than yours. I won't waste my time on your parochial rant though except to point out that your geography was off a bit- you guys were down in the south in Uruzgan province: Task Force Uruzgan

Also, here is a tidbit from the U.S. guy who took over after you guys bailed: worldpolicy.org post by James L. Creighton He touches just a bit on why he cooperated with the local warlord dude and seems to have a different view of "relations that the dutch had been diligently building"...

 

[Agent327]

Yes, I confused the police mission in Kunduz with the ended (not "bailed") mission in Uruzgan. That doesn't make what I say a "rant", and after reading what the following US commander in Uruzgan wrote (mostly propaganda: "bureaucracy impedes victory in Afghanistan"? Seriously?), I don't see any reason to have a different opinion on things.

As for your second remark I don't quite see how that relates to anything said here. If you think GIs are dumb that's your opinion, not mine.

 

[cav scout]

Yes, I confused the police mission in Kunduz with the ended (not "bailed") mission in Uruzgan.

Bailed is the perspective of many here in the U.S.

I know the U.S. Government emplored you guys to stay. And if I remember right it wasn't a unanimous decision there in the Netherlands- I think the Christian Democrats wanted to continue to honor NATO commitments.

The mission has most certainly not ended, it was picked up by Australians and Americans and continues to this day.

That doesn't make what I say a "rant", and after reading what the following US commander in Uruzgan wrote (mostly propaganda: "bureaucracy impedes victory in Afghanistan"? Seriously?), I don't see any reason to have a different opinion on things.

The rant I was refering to was your snide and unfair stereotype of U.S. soldiers having no knowledge of the locals compared to the enlightened Dutch. I know it probably makes you feel good to trash talk American soldiers without having any first hand knowledge. Stereotypes against Americans help you make sense of the world- Puffing your chest out after your country abandons its erstwhile allies is an unfortunate if understandable response.

Now regarding article by COL Creighton- I found it to be pretty silly also. I suspect he needed to get a journal publication or something while at the Army War College so he wrote up a shallow "bureaucracy is bad" piece. Whatever. The reason I linked to it was to offer a different and slightly more nuanced perspective than the arrogant "USA sucks, the Dutch are awesome" one you provided.

One takeaway from the article was that the Dutch didn't engage the local populace nearly as much as you might think. Relationships were not fostered with the local police for example:

The previous Dutch commanders viewed the headquarters as a U.S. project and let it sit unfinished. They also chose not to deal with the local police chief, who, although corrupt, was able to secure the safety of the population by resolving conflicts and expanding police presence throughout the province in a professional manner

It's well known the Dutch strategy in Uruzgan was to hunker down in the 3 main cities and to cede the rest of the province to the Taliban. So about 50% of the population was secured but the Taliban was able to gather strength in various safe havens- so much strength in fact that they attempted a main force attack on one of your bases in Chora.

When the U.S. assumed the mission in Uruzgan this strategy was changed. The local power brokers were let into the fold so to speak. Yes, they are massively corrupt (just like the central govt in Kabul) but the decision was made to work with these guys to provide peace and stability first, then go about nation building stuff. Now this strategy might backfire horribly down the road, only time will tell. But what is certain right now is:

1. The peace and stability in Uruzgan has substantially improved since 2010. The Tabliban presence has been greatly diminished.

2. There have been gains in pretty much every metric of success since the Dutch left and the strategy for the province was changed. Swisspeace NGO report

So yeah... I know Dutch National Narrative paints you guys as the ones who were "in touch" with the locals and making Afghanistan a better place until the bumbling Americans showed up and ruined everything. If that is what you need to feel better about turning tail and running so be it. Just keep the parochialism to yourself though ok?

As for your second remark I don't quite see how that relates to anything said here. If you think GIs are dumb that's your opinion, not mine.

It most certainly seems to be your opinion based on what you said:

Your regular GI has no knowledge of the locals (yes, same as in Vietnam), nor are they iclined to increase what little knowledge they have. That shouldn't be surprising seeing as the worldview of the average American usually ends at the US borders.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I feel so much love for the Dutch who assisted in going into a nation which attacked one of our allies. And I love that the Dutch sticking to the agreement about the withdrawal time from Afghanistan is labeled "turning tail and running".

And I do so love the hypocrisy emanating from your post.

Bailed is the perspective of many here in the U.S.

Well done refuting the US having simplified thoughts on the matter

I know the U.S. Government implored you guys to stay. And if I remember right it wasn't a unanimous decision there in the Netherlands- I think the Christian Democrats wanted to continue to honor NATO commitments.

If I have to believe you, we were crap out there, so why would the US implore us to stay?

And it may not have been a unanimous decision, but we have such a thing as a democracy. When there's an overwhelming majority in favor of sticking to the agreed timescedule with regard to withdrawal, which was rather crucial when the decision was made to go into Afghanistan, and as a result of that we indeed do keep to our agreements, I am so sorry that inconvenienced you.

But I'm confused that when "the Dutch strategy in Uruzgan was to hunker down in the 3 main cities and to cede the rest of the province to the Taliban" why you'd feel bad we did.

Good thing to have us 'bumbling Dutch' gone there right?

 

[Shaihulud]

USA is defeated in Afghanistan because the cost of winning is too much, and the profit from winning, too low. The Taliban is integral to the Afghans society, hard to destroy them, easier to subvert and change them if possible. To destroy Taliban, USA abetted their enemies, this divided Afghanistan, how can peace come from such a onflicted society? Imo, better to educate then to destroy.

 

[Agent327]

Bailed is the perspective of many here in the U.S.

And ofcourse, popular opinion should dictate foreign policy.

The mission has most certainly not ended, it was picked up by Australians and Americans and continues to this day. The rant I was refering to was your snide and unfair stereotype of U.S. soldiers having no knowledge of the locals compared to the enlightened Dutch. I know it probably makes you feel good to trash talk American soldiers without having any first hand knowledge. Stereotypes against Americans help you make sense of the world- Puffing your chest out after your country abandons its erstwhile allies is an unfortunate if understandable response.

I wasn't "trashtalking", I was comparing US strategy with the concept by which the Dutch military are supposed to operate - and this by request. I also provide no "unfair stereotype of U.S. soldiers", so kindly stick to the facts. Lastly, I was talking about the Dutch mission's ending. I'm well aware that things were handed over after.

One takeaway from the article was that the Dutch didn't engage the local populace nearly as much as you might think. Relationships were not fostered with the local police for example:

It's well known the Dutch strategy in Uruzgan was to hunker down in the 3 main cities and to cede the rest of the province to the Taliban. So about 50% of the population was secured but the Taliban was able to gather strength in various safe havens- so much strength in fact that they attempted a main force attack on one of your bases in Chora.

When the U.S. assumed the mission in Uruzgan this strategy was changed. The local power brokers were let into the fold so to speak. Yes, they are massively corrupt (just like the central govt in Kabul) but the decision was made to work with these guys to provide peace and stability first, then go about nation building stuff.

And all this "achievement" will be lost again after the US "bail", as you seem to like to call it. So your point, if any, is moot. Comparing Dutch vs US operations in Uruzgan will always be irrelevant anyway, as the US will have more resources to bring to bear. Yet. despite this, they have no qualms in dealing with known corrupt police and warlords who, once they bail, will once again make their own arrangements.

So yeah... I know Dutch National Narrative paints you guys as the ones who were "in touch" with the locals and making Afghanistan a better place until the bumbling Americans showed up and ruined everything. If that is what you need to feel better about turning tail and running so be it. Just keep the parochialism to yourself though ok?

I seems to me the only "parochialism" here is provided by yourself. When Dutch forces arrived in Uruzxgan, it soon became clear they didn't have the resources necessary to pacify the entire province. So yes, they limited themselves to securing what they could. Dealing with local warlords and corrupt officials in the long run is no strategy at all, as it provides no effective control of anything. Yet this is the same precedent as displayed in Vietnam, the Philippines (mentioned by someone), and Iran (the shah).

It most certainly seems to be your opinion based on what you said:

Your regular GI has no knowledge of the locals (yes, same as in Vietnam), nor are they inclined to increase what little knowledge they have. That shouldn't be surprising seeing as the worldview of the average American usually ends at the US borders.

And how is that refuted by anything you said? All you have talked about is strategy and operations. Your commanding offcers will strike deals, and the GIs on the ground just have to deal with that. Also, how will this effectively win the local population? (It's not implied that GIs are "dumb", as you say; if anything is implied, it is limited information.)

 

[Farm Boy]

I see the tape measures are out.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I see the tape measures are out.

Florida. We lose

 

[Farm Boy]

Heh, that's just our retirement home. It's well loved, but with age it's gotten a bit...flaccid.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Unlike our Noord-Holland, which is not only fully erect, it has ejaculated a couple of islands to boot

Has a couple of suspicious lumps though

 

[Farm Boy]

I suppose if I hold the globe south side up things become significantly more viagra induced.