I have wondered the same thing myself

I think its because 1) it would take too much time and effort by FP, and they have better things to do with their time, 2) sometimes there's a fine line between hateful screeds and honest opinion, and 3)... man, you should check out the AfPak channel - that makes all the other blogs here look like well-organized roundtable discussions. Those guys are nuts. I mean Lal Qila vs the Indian agitprop people. They HAVE in fact banned a bunch of those guys, yet they still come back with double the energy and different names.

If anything its been a learning experience for me on how much the Pakistanis and Indians really, really hate on each other as National hobbies. But yes, I'm not sure the writers bother checking the comments much anymore because of it.

On the topic of the piece cited, I do think most thoughtful observers are aware the 'surge' was a story Americans told to themselves, and that Iraq shifted gears less because of our input and more because of a progression of mostly unrelated events. Sort of like why crime in NYC dropped to historic lows in the mid-90s. It wasn't Giuliani and Bratton and 'broken windows' policing so much as generational issues, a psychological shift, and a recovering economy. Which is not to say that Giuliani didnt help, but that he didn't author history any more than Al Gore invented the internet.

The question of why COIN is needed in Afghanistan overlooks the larger questions of what 'success' would even bring us; what do we gain by a slightly-more stable Afghanistan? A still-damaged backyard for a far-more dangerous Pakistan? Big whoop. Iraq? We broke it, we bought it, its going to be a generation before anything 'stabilizes' there, with us or without us. Mostly what we did was empower Iran. Much of our efforts in both countries seem to me like deciding to paint your house in the middle of a hurricane. You're simply not going to get the right results no matter how hard you try. In fact, all you might be doing is making the whole thing messier, and perhaps you should just board up the windows and head inland. What seems to be missing from Christopher Layne's 'unconventional wisdom' is any insight as to prescriptions for the issues; he ends with saying, "worry about China!", which seems to me to be a canard; that seems to be replacing one (two!) unsolvable problem(s) with a new one. Rather, I'd like to see someone who 'gets it' like him actually consider practical options and weigh their merits. Leave both countries now? (or next summer)? What would that mean? Is it even possible? (I dont think so); what choices do we have and what are their likely consequences? Too often the pundits pride themselves on calling a spade a spade, but when it comes down to it, they are just as bad card-players as anyone else. I want to see the case made for an actual policy alternative, not just more 'insight' into the present day realities. Yes, I know that you need to diagnose a problem before you treat it, but I think we've had diagnosis up the wazoo at this point, yet no useful recommendations for treatment. My person thinking is to announce to Karzai and Maliki, "we've had it; see you later, and good luck", and see what happens. No more of this Patraeus talk about "more time and more troops and we can do better!"... it reminds me of the hippies at Woodstock telling themselves, "if we think real hard, we can stop this rain! No rain no rain no rain!" I'd like to see some honest admissions about the status quo from the DOD and Washington... but that perhaps asks for too much. Maybe just lie to themselves (again), claim 'victory', and take a powder, if that's what will get it done. But I do think there is a growing consensus that if after 9 years (or 7 in Iraq), we haven't achieved what we thought we could achieve, then its time to reassess and regroup. And that means walking away from these countries, embarrassing though it may be. The only choices I see are doing it sooner versus later. All you do by ending it later is make the hangover all the more painful.

I admire what you have written here and what you have written elsewhere. However, I would suggest that these situations are not susceptible to reason. They were not created by reason, they are not conducted by reason, and they cannot be ended by reason. Vous avez besoin d'une des mes maximes qui défend d'employer la raison pour combattre l'humeur. How do you get out of Afghanistan and leave its future to its indigenous groups and the interests of its neighbours? By wanting to, unconditionally. How do you persuade people to want to leave unconditionally? Now, that is a problem to which reason might profitably be applied.

The author here talks about either pulling out or going ahead with COIN as if those were the only 2 options available.

We can sit around with COIN swatting Taliban for decades and the Paki army/ISI can churn them out faster than that.
We can pull out and the Paki army/ISI will then have a field day installing the same regime in Afghanistan that ruled the place from 1996 till 9/11.

Not much of a choice there.

There are scores of other options on the table. One of them is to raise the stakes for the Pakistani army/ISI for their support of the Taliban.

They can participate in helping AGAINST the Taliban and enjoy the fruits of influence in Kabul with others or we will pull in Russia, Iran and India to help fix the problem which will pretty much exclude them. None of those countries will use Pakistan as a route to supply their armed forces which we do.

FP WONK STEVE wrote:

"BTW why can't we get moderators to moderate these comments? I get sick of having to scroll through 20-30 insult laden garbage and off topic posts, looking for any decent feedback."

Even though I distrust the idea of moderators, hear hear.

You'd think that after awhile just re-reading the juvenile exchanges these folks get drawn into would shame 'em into reforming, but....

Holy moses...

Either that is the funniest Lal Qila impression ever (new names he's using = American founding fathers = the "ah, Hindoo?" = and the rhetorical style, spot on!)...

or actually its just really him, and he showed up at the funniest moment to inadvertently mock himself.

Either way, WIN!

.

.

I guess it is Lal. Aww. I hoped it was a spoofer.

Why do they call you Ippon? I think they're mixing you up with someone else. Or was that one of your other past handles?

And Lal, my boy, no one said "invade" pakistan. I think invading Pakistan is the last thing anyone would consider.

Actually putting heat on Pakistan could take many forms. I hate Marty as much as you (he's right below!), but he's actually right about some things: We babysit your failed state with money and diplomacy and pretend you're not completely a disaster. I think there is growing consensus we need to stop treating Pakistan like a retarded cousin. But I dont think that's happening anytime soon either, what with your flooding problems and such. But I think Pakistan is burning itself with its own behavior vis a vis the Taliban, and it will result in repercussions. Although it is hard, as I said, to envision beating the country up at the current moment.

"I hate marty as much as I DO you". Clearer

It's not absurd to think that we might be ignoring Pakistan support for the Taliban as it justifies our war posture. The head of the ISI is approved by the CIA. It's easy to imagine that Pakistan is running a shakedown on the Americans. Is it that far fetched to consider that the American Military Security complex is in on that, shaking down the American citizen/taxpayer?

In the end of XIX - beginning of XX cc. Russia fought a
great war on terror, and it may be instructive to recall its
basic pattern (after all, we are following Russia's steps
pretty closely - Afghanistan, so this pattern may have
been used here and now as well). For the most part of the period,
the terrorist leaders were agents provocateurs of the
government. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degayev
[by an irony of fate, this fellow became a successive US
mathematician in his second half of the life] and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azef . As a result, both
terrorism and counterrorism activities flourished
(the rest of terrorist leaders were eliminated, on the
other hand, there were series of spectacular assassinations
on every level, including the Minister of Interior and the
governor of Moscow, which in turn were used by the
government to crack down on liberals).

Dude, where do you get this nonsense? Radio waves through your tinfoil hat?

Either stop smoking whatever it is you're on, or maybe start; you need get off the conspiracy horse and join the real world for a few minutes.

There was once a guy named "GEORGE WASTHINGON" here on this thread that no longer exists... who was the aforementioned, and regularly banned Lal Qila/A.Khan/New Name guy... no one aside from Marty and him have ever been so annoying as to deserve moderation, and frankly, I give Lal Qila credit for his sheer perseverance. He is not a troll in the pure sense; he's a true believer, albeit a stupid jihadist-apologist true believer. He actually probably does more good than say, Marty Martel (the indian agitprop most recent incarnation) in providing a foil for people to kick around. But at least he is proof that moderators DO exist. Apparently they only emerge to do their job when people like him develop a major track record as agent provocateurs par excellence. Pardon my non-french.