This is the nut of the situation. Look at a map. Afghanistan is slightly smaller than Texas, Iraq is about 2x the size of Idaho and the terrain in Afghanistan is mostly mountainous. Conventional land forces won't work in Afghanistan. This is a job for numerous, but small units of Special Forces troops. Strike fast and move on, follow up is by the "hearts n' minds" services.

The problem with this is that it doesn't end the farmer's dependency on opium production. That means we have to keep paying for it, and at above market value, which as you mention will rise if we're buying it all. It's not a sustainable solution, as some point we will have to stop buying, and when we do all the problem this solution will delay will come back with a vengeance.

To be honest, I doubt we're seriously going to get the farmers there to stop planting opium short of really draconian anti-opium actions or legalization of opium in the Western World (which would collapse prices, driving many away from it). We're going headfirst into a wall of economic reality - why should a farmer spend all his time planting a cheap crop of wheat or grains that might feed his family and allow him to live in a state of desperate poverty, as opposed to planting opium and reaping the benefits of higher prices?

Warlords just might be the better interim deal for us.

If we don't give some thought to what is good for the people that live there, this problem is never going to go away.

I would guess that many of the Afghan tribes are woefully unequipped for even the primitive fighting they do engage in, and could use a serious boost in arms, supplies and transport; something that would require serious Army supervision lest it all reappear in Taliban hands. Some more US troop power would be needed for this.

The more we can insert ourselves at brigade strength, and given a growing Afghan Army with us, the more likely it is that we can sieze and hold key points, roads, towns, and cities. So the hammer for this purpose might be simply three or four brigades, and their supporting units, plus air support.

Some simple, relatively inexpensive infrastructure improvements within the held areas would be useful, but I do not think we should go too far in trying to rebuild the country.

Buying up the poppy crop is an interesting ploy, perhaps as an interim step to finding another cash crop for the farmers, that also would have to be subsidized for a while. What else can be grown there profitably I do not know. All I have seen is rocky land.

The word "encouraging" when applied to a people that have been horse-trading their allegiences for centuries is rather inadequate. Perhaps corruption from our viewpoint is a favorable deal from theirs--it has been a way of life in that part of the world for a very long time.

Warlords just might be the better interim deal for us. Buy them off to fight, as we did earlier, but intersperse strong US contingents around them better to ensure their presence and loyalty. Another reason for a bit of a hammer. We will not deflect the existing tribal allegiences in any material way, so try to make them work for us.
Troops needed.

To add, I like the idea of simply buying up all the opium in Afghanistan. The only downside I can see is that it would probably drive-up worldwide prices of opium, encouraging production both in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The problem with this is that it doesn't end the farmer's dependency on opium production. That means we have to keep paying for it, and at above market value, which as you mention will rise if we're buying it all. It's not a sustainable solution, as some point we will have to stop buying, and when we do all the problem this solution will delay will come back with a vengeance.

To those three things, I would add more troops, weapons,money, and advisors. I don't care if one tribe fights with another but if they fight against the national government,I would strike.
I would seek no peace terms with any tribe but I would reward any tribe's loyalty with protection (not weapons). I would not countenance any illegal drug exports and I would eradicate all poppy fields. I would compensate the landowner an amount equal to other legal agricultural products of the same acreage when I burned their fields.
That would be my five year strategy.

My ten year strategy would be to 1. disrupt the political and economic agendas of disloyal tribal leaders,2. establish social justice within the understanding of Afghanistan culture, and 3.develop a political ruling class and governmental structure to take over when the US departs.

That is what I would do with more troops, money, and weapons. I don't care if Afghanistan is a democracy, republic, oligarchy, or monarchy. I care that it works to support itself in a community of nations and has the opportunity to control its own destiny.

Wouldn't one of the benefits of greatly increasing the troop presence in Afghanistan mean that you could, in addition to training the Afghan Army and fighting Taliban, set up secure training camps on the Afghanistan border to train the lashkars, if negotiations with the Taliban fall apart? They seem to at least be willing, but they lack good weaponry compared to the Taliban and could probably benefit from more military training.

Not to mention, of course, that if you had more troops in Afghanistan, you could re-double and deepen border patrols.

Such a test of allegience is not possible, I assert, and all past performance and stirling CV information one can cite for the individual is totally negated once he feels he must execute his allegience to Muhammad. How can we find out whether he would ever change, or reassert, his allegience in the future? We can't.

Given that this Muslim as President could indeed reassert his Islamic preferences, and perform many actions from that position that would harm the nation immesurably, why would any sane American want such a thing?

Perhaps we would be so unlucky as to elect one that would fight to have Sharia at least partially installed, and would support enclaves of Muslims using Sharia to the exclusion of US law. Yet another step towards Islamic ascendance in the West, as has already been happening in just about every nation in Europe.

We cannot become blinded by the idea that all religions are equal, and all are to be accepted. A religion that has as its main principle the overthrow of all non-Islamic nations in order to install Islam as the one and only true religion, is by definition excluded from the protection of the Constitution.

This idea shows complete ignorance of the Islamic faith and its objectives, and should be rejected out of hand. I consider such promotion of a Muslim the act of a traitor to the United States.

Very bright maneuver, very bright.

Sometimes sarcasm does not come through in this format. If that is in fact what you were trying to inject into this conversation, my apologies.

In the meanwhile, I hava a rather long post I could interject into this conversation that I hold back for the moment (it may or may not be pertinent, basically "prejudice has been with us a long time, and it was not that long ago" sort of thing. I could share it... or not, depending upon how this conversation goes.

I'm not suggesting making it a requirement, I'm just promoting the idea of the voters just doing it.

Ok, I am a voter, and an aetheist, I should consider one's religous beliefs (or lack thereof?) This strikes me as the heigth of stupidity. I do not care where one gets one beliefs, so much as where as one's beliefs takes them.

Why? Don't you think Muslims have been valuable contributors to our society?

I Know one who "contributed" more than you (or I) ever will...

tom

I think there’s just one good argument for more U. S. troops in Afghanistan:

Seeing some of the reports on the Viper company in the Korengal Valley makes you wonder if more troops/something isn't necessary, but that is just one of the aspects of our presence in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, what the hell is wrong with being a Muslim? Or having one as President?

I never said anything was wrong with either. I just proposed it as an idea to face some of the problems in the MiddleEast, A better understanding of Islam, i.e. someone with actual understanding of that religion may be of benefit.

That's not bigotry, it's just stupid partisanship.

Thanks for recognizing it as not bigotry. That claim made no sense at all, just the sound of a sizzling moonbat, I guess. I never claimed to be anything other than partisan, as for 'stupid', everyone will make up their own mind on that anyway.