A goodly chunk of this piece appears not to have anything to do with Afghanistan either. But onward, onward.

Night raids. One wonders, why does HK make such a fuss about them, linking their cessation to the signing of a US-Afghanistan security accord. A secret Talib sympathiser? That's sarcasm; thought I'd mention it, just in case. Now it's common knowledge that there has been at least one analysis that 'proves' that the night raids are not all that they are cracked up to be. Written by liars and friends of terrorists, I shouldn't wonder. In sum the achievement or non-achievement of night raids are less important than their evenutal continuation. Which seems set in stone for as long as Afghanistan has foreign troops 'helping' it.

Poor ANSF performance. It stands to reason that some recruits are not as efficient as others. One wonders, this is a catch-all as it must include a wonderful variety of forces. The place of the Afghan regulars in this must be questionable as in general a countr'y army is not tasked with pacifying portions of that country. Unless, that is, they are used as auxiliaries for the forces of other countries , or one other country. Whence, no doubt, the current popular chant of 'Afghan-led' operations. Just so long as there are no plans for F-15s in the Afghan Air Force and M-1s as the armour.

The icing on the cake is the critique that the Taliban have never disowned AQ. That's very nice. As we all remember, Saudi Arabia was one of only a few countries who recognised the Taliban government. From there to roaring the 'achievement' that some Taliban are now in the UAE negotiating sort of officially, oy, that is far. Of course, we'll be told that awed and shocked they have no other choice. Having recognised their Position Of Weakness. There could have been some time saved, perhaps, if the Taliban had never been derecognised. The next thing you know, the Qatarais and their puppet.-masters will be arguing that AQ is not what it used to be.........

The thing I take away from the library's worth of reports, critiques, committees, stats, speeches, briefings and bluster is that ambiguity is to 21st century warfare what the income gap is to 21st century economics-- that is, a salient and palpable issue. We have literally reached the point where the post-mortem is longer than the actual lifespan of the war. Regarding the phrase "when it's all said and done," we're still a ways off from it actually being done and I think it's all already been said at least three times. The analysis is choking it to death harder than anything John Madden ever did to a superbowl.

Here's the thing of it. Who won the American Revolution? Who won the Napoleonic Wars? Who won the Civil War? Who won the Spanish American War? Who won WWI and WWII? Who won in the Falklands? In wars where you have unequivocal outcomes, things get decided. If war be politics by other means, then the final vote is cast by a single hand waving a white flag.

But what about Korea? Vietnam? Desert Storm? Yom Kippur? Iraq/Iran? India/Pakistan? Any time you have a less than unequivocal end to the war, then you wind up with people who equivocate. And equivocate. And equivocate. The political decision is not made.

Did we win in Iraq? God, it's so convoluted that no one even types that question without putting the word "win" in quotation marks. And after the reams of metrics that are cranked out, and the reams upon reams of analysis picking apart the relative value of those metrics are typed, it will all boil down to a set of quotation marks around "win" in Afghanistan, too. All this senseless crap, just to obfuscate the obvious. If you can't definitively say that you won, then you didn't win. More to the point, you lost.

We hurt ourselves with all this data trying to measure out "to what degree" we "won," because it's pointless make-work to avoid analyzing why we lost. The reason we didn't achieve our objectives was because the objectives themselves and the plans for achieving them were flawed.

I'm sure people will attempt to argue the point. But it is undeniable that Washington beat the crap out of the British until they quit and went home. Grant and Sherman punished the hell out of the south until it gave up. The British decided the Falklands were theirs, so they went and stomped the island flat until Argentina quit.

Did we run anti-American elements out of Iraq and produce a duly-elected functioning government there? Are we going to stomp the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of existence in Afghanistan? No, we didn't. The best we can do is shrug our shoulders and say "time will tell."

I'm not a fan of letting anything other than our troops, standing on the high ground and planting an American flag, tell us if we won or not. I don't think any other American is, either-- especially those who give their sons and daughters to the fight.

The brain trust can argue it to death. The argument itself is a cover to keep us from acknowledging the truth-- at the end of the day we lost because top leadership screwed up from the get-go. So long as these arguments continue, we can't have a meaningful dialogue about how we enter into conflicts with a sincere plan to win. And that only means our future wars (and there will be wars in the future) will end as badly as these last two.

This was watching the colonel himself on the PBS Newshour a few nights ago. PBS tends to keep such things available for several days, and this interview could well be one such souvenir. Its interview transcript is certainly available.

The colonel is a nervous man. not very good at expressing himself orally. He has a few striking stories to tell. In the other corner of the ring, we now have Joseph J. Collins, a retired Army Colonel who teaches at the National War College -- exactly the kind of guy who could be expected to leap out and say Davis is Whack. Whether he is or not.

I am in no position to adjudicate between these men's differing views, and neither is Mr Collins in much of a position to evaluate the quality of Mr Davis's claims. He does say there's a lot of crap in the Davis report and is careful to avoid saying it's all crap.

The TV Davis had a few compelling anecdotes about what men facing the enemy in Afghanistan know and see. They bode ill for the future of American dreams for that part of the world and nobody seems to have refuted any of them. TV Davis also said he deeply respects his profession and hopes he will be allowed to continue within it. We'll see. I think future appointment to the National War College unlikely.

Having heard all the hubbub, I figured I would read LTC Davis' report and try to give it a fare shake as my experience in Afghanistan is two years old at this point. My first thought was "Boy, this guy is all over the map!" As pointed out by Mr. Collins, much of the "report" does not even deal with with Afghanistan.

As it does concern Afghanistan, it certainly is nowhere close to my experience which allowed me to see much of the ANA and situation throught the country. it largely appears to be a collection of anecdotal accounts; certainly not the kind of hard evidence that backs up the very serious charges he makes that many senior officers are lying. I saw him interviewed on the News Hour, and when Margeret Warner asked him directly, "What evidence do you have that senior officers are lying?" he never answered the question except to recycle the one "We don't go out because its dangerous out there" story about the ANSF. This story seems to be the one most quoted and I am starting to think maybe there aren't lot of other incidents. There are certainly a lot of of reports avaialible in both official and open sources that paint a full picture, both positive and negative, which he could have studied and used.

I am trying to figurer out where this guy is coming from and what his perspective is. He is quick to cite (multiple times) the 9000 miles he traveled in Afghanistan the past year, but some other things about his background are not so clear. He has not stated why he got out of the Army in the 90's. Knowing that might paint a clearer picture of his motivations. He has also not said how and why he has been able to stay mobilized as a Reservist for 10 years. He appears to have principally served in higher level staff positions during that time, rather than tactical command. At least Yingling, McMaster and several critics of an earlier era like Hackworth and Herbert have the credibility of command in combat at the eyeball level.

He is certainly no stranger to writing articles critical of the military. I count nine so far.

So, the picture I have is of a Reservist staff weenie who spends a lot of his time writing articles instead of doing his job. He got a chance to play "combat tourist" and then compiles the collected bitches and gripes of those he runs into. He then uses that as justification to accuse our leadership of lying and not coincidentally, enhance his published portfolio and stature in certain circles that may offer him future employment. Just my take.

This is Vietnam 2 America will try and dress this up as sucsess but it has turned into a complete failure America automaticaly took everyone for Al-Qaeda terrorists but this was not the case.
85% of Afghan's had never heard of 9/11 before the war and it is clear that the Taliban are not going to be easliy beaten.
After all how do you expect people to feel you invade their country kill their loved ones destroy their homes and lives and try and force their way of life on you for no reason?
If someone did that to my country i would not welcome them i would grab a gun and fight them too only cowards and traitors welcome ocupiers i do not understand why under these circumstances America expected to be welcomed i put it down to arrogance.
Thats what it is though i do not understand what gives a country with no history or culture of its own that has only existed for 250 years the right to decide the fate of a country that has traditions and culture dating back thousands of years.
As a country America is still an infant relitivly young without the wisdom that comes with age that other countries have devoloped over their long histories.
Infants cannot see things for others point of veiw and often have a hard time understanding how their actions affect others it is not until they have grown up and cast off their childish ignorance that infants become responsible adults.
As long as America continues to believe what they want is what everyone else wants then their childish arrogant behaviour will continue to spoil things for everyone else.
I for one am fed up with the annoying kid charging about in a cowboy outfit fireing plastic guns at imaginary indians someone should put the child in its place and maybe then the adults can have some (world) peace.
Only arrogant people believe their values and opinions to be worth more than others and just because America has the power to bully the whole world does not mean they should.
The people in Afghanistan are only protecting their country from invaders who can really blame them?
It is only in this late hour people are starting to realise the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda are not the same thing and if you are going to attack a country for no reason people will not react nicely.
It is obvious that this has turned into Vietnam 2 and the people do not want America in their country the job will never be done by 2014 and Bushes lie the Al-Qaeda want to kill us all is wearing pretty thin too.
Bush said they would not rest until they have destroyed all infedels the new leader said after Bin Ladens death they would not rest until the infedels were driven from their lands.
There is a big difference between the two and it was my understanding that the Al-Qaeda only started attacking American targets after they entered Kuwait and refuse to leave.
Bin Laden was concerned an American preasance in their part of the world would lead to wars and an end of their way of life turns out after a decade of middle east wars he was right America should go home and mind its own business these problems only started when America tried to rule the world.
If America would stop trying to make up everyones mind for them and telling them what to do these people would do us no harm Britian had a bigger empire and Hitler had greater control over the masses America will always be second place in those departments and are nothing but failures!!!

This is Vietnam 2 America will try and dress this up as sucsess but it has turned into a complete failure America automaticaly took everyone for Al-Qaeda terrorists but this was not the case.
85% of Afghan's had never heard of 9/11 before the war and it is clear that the Taliban are not going to be easliy beaten.
After all how do you expect people to feel you invade their country kill their loved ones destroy their homes and lives and try and force their way of life on you for no reason?
If someone did that to my country i would not welcome them i would grab a gun and fight them too only cowards and traitors welcome ocupiers i do not understand why under these circumstances America expected to be welcomed i put it down to arrogance.
Thats what it is though i do not understand what gives a country with no history or culture of its own that has only existed for 250 years the right to decide the fate of a country that has traditions and culture dating back thousands of years.
As a country America is still an infant relitivly young without the wisdom that comes with age that other countries have devoloped over their long histories.
Infants cannot see things for others point of veiw and often have a hard time understanding how their actions affect others it is not until they have grown up and cast off their childish ignorance that infants become responsible adults.
As long as America continues to believe what they want is what everyone else wants then their childish arrogant behaviour will continue to spoil things for everyone else.
I for one am fed up with the annoying kid charging about in a cowboy outfit fireing plastic guns at imaginary indians someone should put the child in its place and maybe then the adults can have some (world) peace.
Only arrogant people believe their values and opinions to be worth more than others and just because America has the power to bully the whole world does not mean they should.
The people in Afghanistan are only protecting their country from invaders who can really blame them?
It is only in this late hour people are starting to realise the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda are not the same thing and if you are going to attack a country for no reason people will not react nicely.
It is obvious that this has turned into Vietnam 2 and the people do not want America in their country the job will never be done by 2014 and Bushes lie the Al-Qaeda want to kill us all is wearing pretty thin too.
Bush said they would not rest until they have destroyed all infedels the new leader said after Bin Ladens death they would not rest until the infedels were driven from their lands.
There is a big difference between the two and it was my understanding that the Al-Qaeda only started attacking American targets after they entered Kuwait and refuse to leave.
Bin Laden was concerned an American preasance in their part of the world would lead to wars and an end of their way of life turns out after a decade of middle east wars he was right America should go home and mind its own business these problems only started when America tried to rule the world.
If America would stop trying to make up everyones mind for them and telling them what to do these people would do us no harm Britian had a bigger empire and Hitler had greater control over the masses America will always be second place in those departments and are nothing but failures!!!

Good comparison by the way. Hackworth and Herbert saw their careers end after they appeared, respectively, on "Issues & Answers" and "Dick Cavett" (I think). When I read "Stolen Valor" the author claimed that Tony Herbert was a fraud although he didn't produce any evidence to that effect. I contacted the author's publicist who emailed back and said she had received other queries along that vein.

Now, as a 12-year old in Pico Rivera, "Soldier" was a seminal book for me to read in my self-education about Vietnam. This was 1979 so there wasn't nearly as much material out there then as now, although strangely the older works like "365 Days", "12, 20 & 5", "One Morning in the War" were quite good and far better than the 1980's crap in which everyone and his dog claimed to have been a LRRP-Recondo-Green Beret-CIA-assassin or SEAL.

Sorry to divert the thread this way, but does anyone out there have any scoop on the "real" Tony Herbert? Hackworth is well-documented and I regret his early passing.

....are being carried out as if he were the only source of discontent with the way the war in Afghanistan is being prosecuted and sold.

There is a vast array of informatiion that tends to corroborate Davis' view of the situation. His is only the most high profile rendition of what is, essentially, the same story.

Just read the conclusion to Capt Jeffrey Bordin's study of the poisoned relations between western and Afghan forces. (A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatability) Without being an identical telling of the story it most certainly leaves behind a strong belief that if one is the case, how can anything else be otherwise.

...that impugned Davis using the word "Reservist" like it was a dirty word. Having seen his mishmash document I have to say I am doubly disappointed. I had hoped that a well-written and supported document from a member of the RC would be an advance for the RC. Sadly, his shoddy effort almost reinforces the "Reservist" insult. Also unfortunate, because his good points are lost along the way.

Hey Davis, we Reserve guys don't need your help reinforcing old stereotypes. Nothing good will come from this beyond his early departure from service.

Sorry for errors, typing one handed again.

"It don't mean nothing, man. It don't mean nothing...Come on, man...You owe it to yourself. It don't mean nothing. Not a thing man. It don't mean nothing. Not a thing. It don't mean nothing. Not a thing." (Hamburger Hill - Hill 937)

It is unfortunate that this officer has gained such high visibility and then produced a poor product. He has been published before and he got to interview many troops. I expect a better product from RC personnel. And, I anticipate that when the RC member is a Guardsman, I will get greater candor because their promotions are largely state driven and slot availability dependent - not federal.

But it does not matter because the powers that be are reluctant to confront reality and are moving with glacial slowness. The change to talking of an advisory effort is the conventional Army's equivalent to admitting that this will not work. The negotiations with the Taliban parallel what happened in the closing shadows of the Vietnam War. In the next two years, the Karzai government will not change sufficiently to make a difference. The Paks will not close the border. If, in fact, someone has encountered functioning ANA troops; it would be interesting to know to what ethnic group they belong. It would also be interesting to know if they are functioning independently of American troops. Sworn, notarized statements written in the presence of a chaplin would be helpful.

What we need is leadership which will be honest with us. That's a lot to expect in a presidential election year. What I'd like to hear is some 4 star honesty and I expect to be repeatedly disappointed. They may be snowing the president as well. This means poor planning for our withdrawal.

What it must not mean is a face-saving advisory effort which leaves our men and their advisees with inadequate support. That support includes CAS and IDF. Right now, for reasons that I do not understand, we seem to be short on helicopters.

It is almost no longer worthwhile talking about Afghanistan. These jerks will do what they want absent strong direction from the White House.

Afghanistan is all about how U. S. has deliberately deluded itself about Pakistan’s double game.

It is far more about how Pakistani Army has fueled Taliban insurgency all these years since 2001 while U. S. deludes itself that Pakistan is facing the same terrorist threat.

It is far more about why U. S. is trapped in this never-ending Afghan war by its own supposed ally while U. S. foreign policy wonks pontificate about Afghan government‘s corruption.

Former Pentagon official Gen (rtd) Jack Keane said at a discussion on Afghanistan organized by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think-tank on June 30, 2011 that "The truth is, the (Pakistani) ISI aids and abets the sanctuaries in Pakistan that the Afghan (Taliban) operate out of. They provide training for them, they provide resources for them and they provide intelligence for them. From those sanctuaries, every single day Afghan fighters come into Afghanistan and kill and maim us (US/NATO troops)". General Keane also added that “There are two ammonium nitrate factories in Pakistan . 80 per cent of the explosive devices that are used to kill our soldiers, kill Afghan security forces and kill Afghan people come from Pakistan."

Duplicitous Pakistan has successfully cornered U. S. - U. S. can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001 because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

And then Pakistani State has the tenacity to claim ‘victimized’ by one NATO raid that killed 24 Pakistani troops? How about all the US/NATO troops killed over the years because of Pakistani duplicity?

The irony of the US-Pakistan relationship is that the US may set the agenda, but Pakistan invariably maneuvers the results. Despite an outward show of compliance, Pakistan is the decisive factor in this relationship. AS THE NECK IS TO A FACE, PAKISTAN HAS INVARIABLY DETERMINED THE DIRECTION IN WHICH U. S. SHOULD TURN. The latest case in point is Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October, 2011. She had gone there accompanied by the defense and intelligence brass on a mission to force Pakistan to act against Haqqani’s HQN and Mullah Omar’s QST, but Pakistani Generals stared them down.

With an ally like Pakistan, U. S. Afghan mission was doomed from the very beginning.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/articles_publications/publications/the-cost-of-kill-capture-impact-of-the-night-raid-surge-on-afghan-civilians-20110919/Night-Raids-Report-FINAL-092011.pdf

Not quite AI, but.........

The effectiveness of night raids obviously has its proponents and its detractors. However, IF the current Afghan government, in the person of its President, wants these to cease and is willing to stand by the condition that these cease or more reasonably that Afghans are more in the know then the effectiveness of night raids becomes a political football. Needless to say, some provincial governors are to be found who are only too happy to support night raid,s no matter what the government in Kabul might say. This is all a little similar to reports from Iraq when at different times Sunni and Shia figures could be found to speak up in support of the 'coalition' and against the official stand of government official in Baghdad.

If you think this war is going well over there. Please feel free t join those of us who have done tours and spend a year, not in the TOC either, then comment.

Well, according to supporters, here's one.

"Afghanistan's Dirty War: Why the Most Feared Man in Bermal District Is a U.S. Ally"

"On Nov. 30, 2009, in the shadow of mountains that crumple up 9,000-ft. ridges, an Afghan mercenary bankrolled by the U.S. military and hell-bent on the destruction of Taliban rebels allegedly stopped three men heading home to celebrate 'Id ul-Qurban with their families. According to an elder from Bermal, the Afghan district where the incident took place, Commander Azizullah and his men bound their hands. Then, the elder told TIME, Azizullah drew his pistol and shot them. There was no evidence that these men were insurgents, the elder says. "But he killed them anyway.""

http://tinyurl.com/89b6cug

Only problem is that he's also a pretty effective recruiting SGT for the opposition and is probably responsible - along with his patrons - for the deaths of American troops. It may be expedient in the short term to have people like Azizullah out there killing "bad guys" on America's behalf but do the longer term ramifications (more dead Americans, stoking the potential for ethnic civil war, further delegitimization of the "host" government, and providing further obstacles to effective development) really justify the means?

I find it hard to believe that it does.

I mean, it's not exactly well-sourced.

Still, let's assume it's true. You ever notice how we assume that any behavior towards the population that wouldn't be acceptable from the Beverly Hills PD will have terrible repercussions, etc, and yet the violence applied to civilians by the Taliban hasn't lost the war for the latter? Why is that?

Another thing. If you want effective local forces, you're stuck with either Azizullah or Sepoys, and the latter are politically offensive to our state ideology.

Much of the sourcing for this is a UN report that was only internally distributed. That report noted consistent reporting - across a broad area - that appeared to show evidence of system.

Of course, unless that's tested in a judicial setting (problematically unlikely), we have only allegation and denial.

And perception. As the great General says, that's important.

As to the tolerance for casualties caused by Taleban: there was a Rand report on that last year. Based on ISAF's own data they found increases in violence against ISAF and gov't forces at district level following harm to civilians caused by those forces and that such incidents increased recruitment beyond provincial boundaries.

The same study found no such correlation or adverse effect following Taleban violence. The report doesn't venture an opinion as to why that might be. Something to think deeply about.

That may seem very unfair but there it is.

Uzbeks were among the most effective of the old communist regime's soldiers; Najibullah's fate was sealed when Dostum changed sides and joined the Mujahideen.

There is an old Afghan saying that goes something like "The anger of the Afghan [i.e., Pashtun] is less than the mercy of the Uzbek."

For what its worth, many Pashtun tribes resisted conscription and, essentially, negotiated exemptions from the draft for their men. Attempts to enforce universal conscription were one of the reasons for widespread resistance to Kabul (whether ruled by monarchs, republicans or communists). The British found that there was a huge difference between the reliability (i.e., would they mutiny and kill their officers or not) of trans-border and cis-border Pakhtuns. They often would have platoons of companies of Khattaks and/or Yusufzais to balance out the Mehsuds and Wazirs in a garrison. The Yusufzais especially were almost invariably loyal.

Najib's fate was sealed when Russia, under American pressure, cut off his oil. As Wordsworth put it, nobody wants to bet on a weak horse.

Steve-I have little faith in social science studies done in the US, not to mention ones done in an uncontrolled environment like Afghanistan. This particular one strikes me as similar to the Soros center one about night raids. They're both acts of psychological class warfare, designed to confuse and demoralize the class enemy and make them abandon effective tactics, demonstrate to the populace that they are the weak horse by, for instance, belly crawling and apologizing for every civilian casualty, etc. It's worked admirably thus far.

Remember when he and Gene Conley got off the BoSox bus in NYC and decided to go to Israel? I think they both may have had a cocktail.
FYI, I spent five years in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Davis is right.. We are completely screwed up and have no chance of succeeding. The Afghans HATE having us in their country.

I rather have Pumpsie running our involvement than any one who is running it now.

>Every man or woman in uniform has a right to his anecdotes, but no matter how many anecdotes you can string together, they don't constitute data or sound judgments.

Look, this does not matter when so much of what LTC Davis said keeps getting repeated by others privately and in print, in less public, less focused, less accusatory pieces. Even if they are not scientific data or sound judgments, his views have a qualitative ring of likelihood.

COL Collins in the thread says "My angst came from two facts: 1) I think he made a weak case, and 2) He called a lot of hard working senior folks "liars," when in fact, if you read the quotes he provided, the senior people gave a very nuanced view."

I don't disagree with these points, but that the case is weak doesn't make it wrong (it looks and smells, prima facie, right--in spite of its unctuous presentation). As for the accusations of "lying," there is a strong pull to lie to one's self, and just as Davis is likely as guilty of it as anyone else is, the optimisitc cheerleaders invested in a positive outlook in Afghanistan don't make me feel any better when they strain their nuanced observations. The "hammer" is right I think: self-delusion is written all over this war. Davis' initial piece appeared greasy, but it doesn't mean we should feel better for discovering that.

Davis's article represents the attitude of a good number of junior to mid level officers in Afghanistan: That we may be effective tactically at bashing Taliban but we are in strategic drift, with no appreciable strategic and policy gains after so many years of doing armed nation building there.

Joe Collins on the other hand represents perfectly the general officer consensus on Afghanistan; that we are succeeding, the end is in sight, as long as we are given the time that we need. It is as simple as that.

Moreover, at least Danny Davis had the moral courage to name names in his piece while the fair haired boy of Joe Collins, Tom Ricks and others--Paul Yingling--in his Failure of Generalship piece four years ago never did.

For those who criticize LTC Davis' report as not being polished product, you might note the words DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT written on every page.

Night raids make for great theatre, great and impressive stats and lots of exciting things to do for various super soldiers and their supporters. For those reasons they have been a mainstay in struggle against Taliban & Co. and they will never go away. They are just too darn cool.

But you would expect that something so touted would make a difference in fight. It hasn't. Not much has changed. Taliban & Co. get stronger and our side doesn't.

You would think somebody in the military establishment would look beyond the cool factor and see that the night raids don't further the cause. The people at Frontline and Afghan Analyst Network have. Tim Lynch at Free Range International doesn't seem to like them much either.