Iraq vs. Afghanistan

[OULobo]

Subject for debate: Why are things going so much smoother in Afghanistan than in Iraq?

Points of discussion:
-Are they really going smoother?
-Influence of Oil?
-Closer to the general volitility of the central Middle East.
-Bush's personal vendetta / motives for invation.
-Iraq being more modern and developed.
-Methods used in conflict (SF vs. Reg. Army, getting tribal support vs. strong arming).

Let the games begin.

 

[Flatlander]

I think that things are going a little smoother in Afghanistan, and I speculate that this would be largely attributable to the support for the movement by grassroots Afghanis. People have realized more personal freedoms without having to give up their quality of life, (really, what was to lose?) and I think that this is where Iraq diverges. Though Iraqis are free, many are not "living better" than they were under Saddam prior to the UN sanctions.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I am tempted to say, bring 'em together, let 'em duke it out.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The media tends to ignore anything positive, and prefers to focus on the dark and gloomy.

Afghanistan just had it's first free election in decades, with minimal problems.
The population is about the same size ar Iraqs, and women voted (a major miracle there).
The expected major Taliban and Al Quida attacks just didn't happen.

Afghanistan News:
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=afghan

Regarding Traq/Afghanistan from a military perspective, we have 170,000 troops in Iraq, and 17,000 in Afghanistan. Less troops = less casulties = less "News" for the media to play with. Oh, and theres no oil or other real wealth in Afghanistan so it's of course less "NewsWorthy". (I had more, but had a browser hiccup that ate my post)

Order of Battle:
Iraq - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
Afghanistan - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef_orbat.htm

Iraq Losses
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

 

[Ender]

The media tends to ignore anything positive, and prefers to focus on the dark and gloomy.

Afghanistan just had it's first free election in decades, with minimal problems.
The population is about the same size ar Iraqs, and women voted (a major miracle there).
The expected major Taliban and Al Quida attacks just didn't happen.

Afghanistan News:
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=afghan

Regarding Traq/Afghanistan from a military perspective, we have 170,000 troops in Iraq, and 17,000 in Afghanistan. Less troops = less casulties = less "News" for the media to play with. Oh, and theres no oil or other real wealth in Afghanistan so it's of course less "NewsWorthy". (I had more, but had a browser hiccup that ate my post)

Order of Battle:
Iraq - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
Afghanistan - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef_orbat.htm

Iraq Losses
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

In addition to that, the strategy could be to make it look like things are going badly in Iraq, thus drawing in more terrorists from outlying areas. That way we can gather them in one palce and kill them there, instead of fighting their cells here in the states.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Their cells in the US are still active, still planning, etc. They've had over 10 years to "dig in", and our borders are still full of gaping holes.

I do agree though, better there than here.

 

[raedyn]

Oh, and theres no oil or other real wealth in Afghanistan so it's of course less "NewsWorthy".

unless you count the poppies....

 

[PeachMonkey]

In addition to that, the strategy could be to make it look like things are going badly in Iraq, thus drawing in more terrorists from outlying areas. That way we can gather them in one palce and kill them there, instead of fighting their cells here in the states.

A genius strategy, except it's not drawing anyone from Al Qaeda cells *here*, it's simply agitating local fanatacism. Oh, and it's turning the everyday Iraqi against a stable secular government, and towards fundamentalist Islamic forces that promise to expel the occupier.

I certainly *hope* that the administration is simply lying when they claim this strategy is deliberate, so that they're disingenuous instead of being utterly incompetent.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Afghanistan just had it's first free election in decades, with minimal problems.

"Minimal" problems that included the majority of major candidates backing out of the election.

Oh, and huge parts of the country are subject to warlordism and Sharia rule, including significant remnants of the Taliban. Outside of Kabul, the nation has changed virtually not-at-all.

And there's that whole massive boost to the world's opiate supply.

Just as an aside, we also managed to let huge numbers of senior Al Qaeda leaders get away.

Otherwise, though, Afghanistan has been a major success.

 

[Flatlander]

I think that it has, so far, been pretty positive. Of course, its not perfect - is perfection possible in this circumstance? In time, things will settle down and Afghanistan will find its footing, provided they continue to recieve international peacekeeping and democratic support.

Patience, my fellows. It's only been 3 years.

 

[OULobo]

Many of the media outlets say that the military let the SF guys do there thing in Afghanistan and the Reg. Army get their way in Iraq. They attribute the smoother ride to the more ethno-friendly tactics of the SF guys.

 

[PeachMonkey]

In time, things will settle down and Afghanistan will find its footing, provided they continue to recieve international peacekeeping and democratic support.

Assuming that support is sufficient. It hasn't been so in Afghanistan yet -- the US pulled its forces out to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, and the country has been destabilised since.

Patience, my fellows. It's only been 3 years.

3 years during which we could actually have been carrying out our claimed plan to rebuild the country.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Many of the media outlets say that the military let the SF guys do there thing in Afghanistan and the Reg. Army get their way in Iraq. They attribute the smoother ride to the more ethno-friendly tactics of the SF guys.

The SF guys were listened to during the initial work with the Northern Alliance to run the Taliban out; once significant regular forces were committed, Army brass began to discount SF again, as they always do.

Our failures at Tora Bora are a classic example of this.

 

[Flatlander]

Assuming that support is sufficient. It hasn't been so in Afghanistan yet -- the US pulled its forces out to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, and the country has been destabilised since.

Could you elaborate on this? In what ways are you seeing a destabilization? I think a lot of this will be decided by how Afghanis respond to the election results.

 

[OULobo]

The SF guys were listened to during the initial work with the Northern Alliance to run the Taliban out; once significant regular forces were committed, Army brass began to discount SF again, as they always do.

Our failures at Tora Bora are a classic example of this.

That's exactly what I heard also.