Either: the end of Afghanistan, or the start of Pakistan

[Scheavo]

https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/26/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE7AP03S20111126

NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing as many as 28 troops and plunging U.S.-Pakistan relations deeper into crisis.

Pakistan retaliated by shutting down NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, used for sending in nearly half of the alliance's land shipments. It also said it would ask U.S. forces to quit an air base used for CIA drone strikes on militants.

So, does this end the war, or broaden it?

[jsem]

Time to end it imo. But I don't think it will be ended.

[MasterShakezula]

Time to cut our losses, leave, and accept that if the region's to change, the change must come from within. 

[Scheavo]

Time to end it imo. But I don't think it will be ended.

Then what's gonna happen? No supply routes to Afghanistan really, and supply routes are the blood vein of any war.

Even if you think we should stay in Afghanistan (and I don't), this causes a serious dilemma.

[Perpetual Change]

I really am praying that there is no war with Pakistan. We are in deep shit if it amounts to that. But equally importantly, we will have fucked over the lives of (another) country of people.

[Rathma]

Time to be brave and admit failure.

[El Barto]

I'm actually kind of torn on this.  I'm opposed to the war in Afghanistan, obviously,  but the Pakistanis have really been fucktards for the last 10 years.  The continuous appeasement while they play both sides is really pretty embarrassing.  If we are to carry on this folly in Asia,  then we should be doing it with the proper understanding of who's on which side.  Unfortunately,  outright war with Pakistan would only create more bad guys,  but continuing to occasionally blow shit up in their border region can't make things any worse than they already are.  I'd probably continue down that path with the understanding that my hands aren't tied quite as much anymore.

[kirksnosehair]

We need to end all of our foreign wars and start spending the money we're spending on dropping bombs on worthless piles of sand here, in this country, on our own people, infrastructure, etc.

[Perpetual Change]

but continuing to occasionally blow shit up in their border region can't make things any worse than they already are. 

From what I've been told, it can make a pretty huge difference, especially with people who are kinda raring to have a go at the Unite States anyway.

[Scheavo]

I'm actually kind of torn on this.  I'm opposed to the war in Afghanistan, obviously,  but the Pakistanis have really been fucktards for the last 10 years.  The continuous appeasement while they play both sides is really pretty embarrassing.  If we are to carry on this folly in Asia,  then we should be doing it with the proper understanding of who's on which side.  Unfortunately,  outright war with Pakistan would only create more bad guys,  but continuing to occasionally blow shit up in their border region can't make things any worse than they already are.  I'd probably continue down that path with the understanding that my hands aren't tied quite as much anymore.

No supply lines means no Afghanistan war; the option to continue down the path we were headed is not an option. It's either we double down with Pakistan to try and get what we want done in the region, or we leave. There really isn't another realistic option, becuase you have to have supply lines to fight a war, period. We don't have another good way of delivering supplies.

[Riceball]

Here's a tasty one for all you geopolitical junkies: who is more likely to cop a whack from the US out of Iran and Pakistan?

[Scheavo]

Is "cop a whack" Australian?

Honestly, I don't see either as terribly possible. American's are tired of the Wars were already involved in. If I had to hedge a bet at this moment, I would say Pakistan, becuase really we're already whackin parts of Pakistan.

[jsem]

I think the drone program is just going to be expanded. Pakistan will have a tough time trying to get the US out of the region. Not that much will change.

It'd be best to just get out though.

[Scheavo]

Am I the only one who seems to realize the consequences of no supply lines? No supply lines means no war, period. You have to have a safe, reliable way to supply your troops, or you won't be fighting anyone. Drones won't have the missiles to fire, nor the fuel. There's only so much you can drop by air, and only so far you can go with those planes.

This is a very serious threat to our actual capability to wage war, and it has nothing at all to do with our desire to go to war, or what our interests are in the region. Napoleon and Hitler both failed in Russia because of their supply lines.

[El Barto]

As I recall,  Napoleon's supply line problem was one of length; he was just flat overextended.  This was compounded by the fact that feeding an army of that size tended to be a "live off the land" proposition since preservation was pretty primitive.  Had he done his naughty business 10 years later,  his food supply problem would have been largely resolved since it was because of his problems that better methods of preservation (canning in particular) were invented. 

Also,  I think Adolph's problem was as much a function of production as delivery.  I don't think getting winter coat and boots to the Eastern front was as difficult as just getting winter coat and boots.

Anyway,  your point about Pakistan is sound.  I didn't realize how insulated Afghanistan was.  That said,  neither Hitler nor Napoleon had the capability to airlift 85 tons of gear in a single flight.  Forward bases would still be supplied, but it'd probably mean a shift in strategy,  which I've been saying for a while was in order anyway.  I'm not sure how much the traditional warfare approach is needed over there.  I suspect that the unconventional approach is probably a better play right now. 

[Scheavo]

As I recall,  Napoleon's supply line problem was one of length; he was just flat overextended.  This was compounded by the fact that feeding an army of that size tended to be a "live off the land" proposition since preservation was pretty primitive.  Had he done his naughty business 10 years later,  his food supply problem would have been largely resolved since it was because of his problems that better methods of preservation (canning in particular) were invented. 

Also,  I think Adolph's problem was as much a function of production as delivery.  I don't think getting winter coat and boots to the Eastern front was as difficult as just getting winter coat and boots.

Oh yes there's differences, but they still relate to problems of supply. You can have issues with supply in a thousand different ways, but they're all harmful, and they all have drastic impact. I think one of the first rules of war is to make sure you have a secure supply line - something we no longer have.

Anyway,  your point about Pakistan is sound.  I didn't realize how insulated Afghanistan was.  That said,  neither Hitler nor Napoleon had the capability to airlift 85 tons of gear in a single flight.  Forward bases would still be supplied, but it'd probably mean a shift in strategy,  which I've been saying for a while was in order anyway.  I'm not sure how much the traditional warfare approach is needed over there.  I suspect that the unconventional approach is probably a better play right now.

I think there's a reason we've been paying Pakistan for supply routes though. Can you air drop everything you're going to need for such a large war? Honest question there. And if it is possible, are we currently set up in such a way so as to accomplish this? Also, you're going to be violating some sort of treating by air dropping supplies. Sure, we could just continue to fly over Pakistan, but that'll probably anger them, and they could theoretically shoot some planes down, or just start attacking our, now, cornered troops in Afghanistan.

[El Barto]

Yeah,  I'm pretty sure some wise and ancient China-man had something important to say on the matter.   

As for the current predicament,  I believe we're landing c17's in Afghanistan,  so it's not a matter of air drops.  And if there's a shift in strategy,  I'm pretty sure the airlift option will be sufficient. 

Just ignoring Pakistan is something I'd considered.  I'm pretty confident that they want war with us much less than we care.  I suspect they'd grumble and file a complaint here of there,  but I'd bet good money they wouldn't take any shots at us. 

[Scheavo]

They wouldn't have to really take a shot at us, they could just proxy war us on the Afghan/Pakistani border.

Because ya, I'm sure the leaders in Pakistan know THEY would be gone if they declared war on us. We're still very fucking good at conventional warfare.

[El Barto]

They're already doing that, and we're already blowing up their combatants. 

Still,  none of this really matters.  Pakistan will back down as they know they have no way of backing up their threats. 

[Scheavo]

I guess I don't see that as happening. Our relationship with them is too broken at this point; they always have the wild card of a nuke as well. We gotta respect them, becuase they could give their nukes into terrorist hands. We gotta appease them more than they gotta appease us, at the moment.

[El Barto]

I disagree.  Carelessness with his nukes is the last thing he can demonstrate.  Furthermore,  just because he can build a bomb doesn't mean that he has many of them.  He needs every one he can get as deterrence against those warmongering Hindus next door. 

More importantly,  Musharraf,  like all politicians,  wants to stay in power.  Much like Saddam Hussein, war with us is the very worst thing for his cause,  with the difference being that our current leader doesn't have a psychological need to invade him at all costs, and a war department that's itching at the chance to bomb somebody.  We don't want trouble, and neither does he.  All we need to do is to make sure that being involved with us won't get him tossed out,  which has been his strategy all along.  He'll grumble for the sake of his popularity,  but in the end it'll just be business as usual. 

[Scheavo]

I thought Musharraf lived in Texas these days?

[El Barto]

Huh.  Didn't realize he was gone.  It would appear that his successor is even more of a lapdog to us, though (and even more crooked).  The same rules still apply. 

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah I feel like nothing will really change despite what they say.  Pakistan receives so much aid from us.  They need us as much as we need them in that region.  I also don't think they would ever start a war with the US.  We'd flatten them in an outright conflict.

I'm sure we have enough ways of coercing them into making sure that they let us maintain our supply lines.  I mean, they were harboring Osama bin Laden, so, there is always that to hold over their heads.

[Scheavo]

Huh.  Didn't realize he was gone.  It would appear that his successor is even more of a lapdog to us, though (and even more crooked).  The same rules still apply.

Except they've cut off our supply route. How is that him being our lapdog?

[El Barto]

It's only been two days.  He's got plenty of time to heal.

In the mean time,  the US was already shifting much of it's supplies to Northern routes; 40% thus far.  The hope was to have it at 75% by the end of the year.   It won't be the end of the world.  What it will be is 100 million dollars less that we hand out to Pakistan per year.  Considering that their friendship has been half-assed, at best,  I'd say that this is probably an improvement. 

It'll probably make killing bad guys along the border quite a bit easier, as well.

[Scheavo]

It's only been two days.  He's got plenty of time to heal.

In the mean time,  the US was already shifting much of it's supplies to Northern routes; 40% thus far.  The hope was to have it at 75% by the end of the year.   It won't be the end of the world.  What it will be is 100 million dollars less that we hand out to Pakistan per year.  Considering that their friendship has been half-assed, at best,  I'd say that this is probably an improvement. 

It'll probably make killing bad guys along the border quite a bit easier, as well.

Hmm.. guess I have bad sources; thought Pakistan was the only route in.

That certainly changes everything.

[El Barto]

Pakistan was easily the best route.  The Northern route involves more countries (including Russia, which isn't terribly onboard with that folly),  and therefore more tariffs and work.  Losing Pakistan as an ally certainly doesn't help the cause,  but it's not the end of the world and was something they were actively preparing for. 

I still suspect that the 100 million will talk pretty loud, and this will blow over.

Also,  it's a lot harder to kill people (the ones who actually need killing) in Pakistan while trying to maintain peaceful relations. If Pakistan doesn't care about being our buds in the region,  we'll probably ratchet up the use of drone strikes in the border region. 

[Scheavo]

Some reason I thought the northern route was cut-off form us, essentially. So ya, given that, I think what you're saying is dead on. Also explains why this hasn't gotten more coverage.

[Super Dude]

He lives in Texas? Barto, you should go chill with him and get him to tell everybody to chill the fuck out.