[filerba]

1. Chase down and kill, capture, or expel from the country as many Al Qaeda as possible.
2. Shoot up the Taliban, cause they're friends with Al Qaeda and generally suck.
3. Help the Northern Alliance or some other group take Kabul.
4. Declare a successful punitive raid and go home.

R edit: Off to Gorkiy you go.

[Smilin' Dave]

1-3 were pretty much what was done, and no one would have believed that point 4 was genuine. Further if Afghanistan had fallen back into anarchy soon after the conflict, the training camps would soon have reopened and you are back to square one.

[redcarpet]

Help the Northern Alliance

Why? They're literally the same as the Taliban

[Zagadka]

Yea, that is pretty much what we did, except for leaving.

Why? They're literally the same as the Taliban

Not quite,,, though the Taleban weren't the kind of organization portrayed.

We should, however, accept that Islam is going to be dominant in the region... the social structure is totally unprepared for a non-theist government. Hell, we still refuse to remove "In God We Trust" from anything and fight about the bloody Ten Commandments.

[unbalanced zealot]

The OP forgot about Rambo.

How bout him and Steven Segal and the bloke from 24 ... all with 007 gadgets and stuff ... kicking ass.

[Zagadka]

Steven Segal only fights environmental threats... like a slightly less gay Captain Planet.

And Bond doesn't have all the gadgets anymore.

[unbalanced zealot]

I didn't actually suggest Bond himself ... but after Obama's recent speech about Europe getting more involved ...
I think he should actually be on the team. Unless Euro-skeptics block his inclusion.

This is all pretty intense stuff. Anyway - the problems are in the NWFP region as much as Afghanstan ATM so maybe the OP can cough up
some insights into how to play the Pakistan scenario. Would Rambo have been allowed to be let loose in Pakistan or would he have been
confined with the borders of Afghanstan? Personally, I think Paris Hilton should have been sent in to win over all the key ISI players who were
supporting the Taliban with sexual favors. American could have won much more quickly if that had been done right from the start.

[unbalanced zealot]

Apparently, all the strategies I alluded to above were seriously considered by Bush until Condi Rice pointed out to him that these options weren't actually feasible in reality.

[filerba]

Apparently I didn't provide enough immediate exegesis to be considered on topic :(

The reason point 4 works is that it defines success as punishing an attack, instead of attempting to impose a foreign order on the country. It's barbaric justice rather than civilized imperialism, which may be appreciated by the Afghanis. And really only barbaric in attitude rather than effect since, as Smilin' Dave pointed out, the first three steps happened anyways.

The ideology or character of the Northern Alliance is unimportant. They were not associated with Al Qaeda, so America helps them against those who were. Naturally the Taliban takes over again; they pretty much have anyway. But now the pragmatists in their leadership and their ISI backers see Al Qaeda as troublesome foreigners with a foreign agenda. Even if the training camps do reopen, they can always be attacked again. Easier to do it there than in Pakistan.

As for Pakistan, they are way too heavily armed to be unstable. Their plan to send all the fanatics to Afghanistan seemed like a good one. Now they've been pushed back to NWFP. And Obama wants to attack them there? Maybe they will be crushed, or maybe they'll be pushed even closer to where the nuclear bombs are kept.

[Red_Army]

I think we should have infiltrated the Taliban, then systematically assassinate/capture the heads of Al Qaeda - then proceed to leave the Taliban intact, perhaps abducting some of the leaderships children and threatening to kill them if they allow Al Qaeda to resurge.

Seriously without covert CIA missions our foreign policy has gotten really gay. NED? Pussies, money doesn't talk, death does.

[QatzelOk]

Chase down and kill, capture, or expel from the country as many Al Qaeda as possible.

They're the guys with the "AQ" pins on their lapels?

[Smilin' Dave]

Naturally the Taliban takes over again; they pretty much have anyway. But now the pragmatists in their leadership and their ISI backers see Al Qaeda as troublesome foreigners with a foreign agenda.

They always knew that, but Al Qaeda were seen as a potential asset in the fight against the Northern Alliance (and indeed in the early days AQ trainees were sent north to fight with the Taliban). Your scenario buts the Taliban in the same position as last time, if not more bitter with foreign powers, which actually adds incentive to support someone who publically wants to strike out at them.

Even if the training camps do reopen, they can always be attacked again.

Repeating the whole show again is more expensive than doing it once and making it stick. Especially if this turns into a vicious cycle.

Easier to do it there than in Pakistan.

The Taliban/AQ would still have set up more (there were already camps in Kashmir etc.) camps in Pakistan in your scenario, after then have been pushed out of the country. Such camps would be seen as important in the later offensive to retake Afghanistan.

As for Pakistan, they are way too heavily armed to be unstable.

The same could have been said of Iran in 1979. If those arms are turned on the government, or just can't be relied upon to do what is needed, things can break down.

Their plan to send all the fanatics to Afghanistan seemed like a good one. Now they've been pushed back to NWFP.

You do realise that in the last month there have been several high profile attacks in Pakistan outside of the North West frontier zone, right?

where the nuclear bombs are kept.

Actually that's something I was pondering recently. Does anyone know what Pakistan's nuclear structure is like? For example:
- Who actually has authority to deploy the weapons? (eg. can local commanders deploy them in emergencies)
- Where are the warheads physically stored? Ready to go, near the weapons or in a seperate hardened facility to be handed out "when the time comes"?

[MistyTiger]

1. Chase down and kill, capture, or expel from the country as many Al Qaeda as possible.

It takes a lot of time and resources to investigate and monitor people's activities and do background checks to make sure that they're members of Al Qaeda. Easier said than done. I'm reading a book by Bamford on the NSA, and there's a lot of money and time that goes into all the monitoring activities.

2. Shoot up the Taliban, cause they're friends with Al Qaeda and generally suck.

Oh great...that's such a good reason to attack anyone. If we did things going by that, we'd be shooting up more than just the Al Qaeda. We might be shooting at Pakistan, who some believe are harboring terrorists. But because we have an agreement with Musharraf, we won't and can't do anything about it. And yet, we have been sending them a billion dollars a year.

[Shah]

Why? They're literally the same as the Taliban

This is wrong on so many levels. Do you even know what you're talking about? Sure some Northern Alliance leaders are/were corrupt bastards, but they are not "the same as the Taliban". During the midst of the Civil War from 1992-1996 under President Burhanuddin Rabbani (Northern Alliance leader), Kabul University was coed and women had jobs as judges, waitresses, etc, and you know, were actually allowed to go outside on a frequent basis. Unlike the Taliban, the Northern Alliance did not hold any type of ethnic superiority. The Taliban oppressed all minorities and made Pashto the sole official language of Afghanistan, even though the majority of Afghans speak Farsi. The Northern Alliance does not even exist anymore anyways- there are now a bunch of different political parties. I could go on but people like you enjoy making retarded claims like that though, so whatever.

[filerba]

The Taliban saw Al Qaeda as an asset to be used in their war. Under my scenario, they would become a net liability. The Taliban would be mad at America, but once America left, they could get back to their civil war; where strategy would suggest not getting into further pointless conflicts with the US. The plan could fail, but I'm not convinced that going back later would be more expensive than occupying the country in the meantime. You're right, an endless cycle would be unacceptable and under that eventuality a new strategy would be required. But it's not like the strategy actually adopted has been all that successful.

Expelling the Taliban from the country is definitely not part of the plan though, so they would have no need to build bases in Pakistan.

My ambiguous wording on Pakistan may have led to an interpretation opposite of what I meant. Pakistan is heavily armed and instability there should not be encouraged, which is what the occupation of Afghanistan has done. I am aware of the recent terrorist trends in Pakistan. As America conducts more operations in the Tribal Areas, we will no doubt see even more attacks in the rest of the country.

We might be shooting at Pakistan, who some believe are harboring terrorists.

Alas, we have been doing that for some time.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
According to this report they keep the warheads disassembled and separate from the missiles. I am not really worried about Pashtun militants taking them by force of arms. But US attacks in Pakistan increase the chance of a more radical government taking power, or a conspiracy in the nuclear forces to steal a warhead.

[MistyTiger]

Since when have we been launching attacks in Pakistan?

[Holt]

Obviously the OP hasn't been following developments for ten years, as s/he would then realise that none of the steps proposed would have achieved anything different when the pro-Taliban tendency actually holds most of its support in Pakistan. As usual, the present borders are guff when held to the light of political reality.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Taliban saw Al Qaeda as an asset to be used in their war. Under my scenario, they would become a net liability. The Taliban would be mad at America, but once America left, they could get back to their civil war

A civil war where they are right back where they started, with small footholds in the south. If anything the desire to regain their former possessions would encourage a more radical approach to shorten the campaign/s.

where strategy would suggest not getting into further pointless conflicts with the US.

Would it be pointless, if it appeared that:
- The US didn't win the first time (after all, Taliban survived, camps coming back).
- The US has come out as a specific opponent (now counter moves have to be considered).
- The US has already shown exactly how far it will go, which in light of the first point, isn't far enough.

plan could fail, but I'm not convinced that going back later would be more expensive than occupying the country in the meantime.

By logic, every time you start again, you have to redo everything, rather than just progress from the advanced position. In particular the release of heavy ordinance to cover the advance of the Northern Alliance (or second time around it might have to be US troops on the ground) would have to be done all over again, and those munitions arn't cheap. That there is no return on this investment (remember the threat of cyclical violence) only makes the proposition more expensive in relative terms. It might be cheaper in some respects for the Taliban a second time, as they gain a morale advantage and propaganda as well as the possiblity they learn some military lessons.

You're right, an endless cycle would be unacceptable and under that eventuality a new strategy would be required.

Having wasted the resources the first few times, how can you justify a change of course later on, or ensure that the resources will always be available. The second time around, Afghanistan might not be the primary theatre to start with.

But it's not like the strategy actually adopted has been all that successful.

Because the current strategy didn't follow through on its own point 4 for various reasons. That what is being done now isn't working isn't an endorsement for your approach.

Expelling the Taliban from the country is definitely not part of the plan though, so they would have no need to build bases in Pakistan.

The Taliban and other sympathetic groups have always had bases along the border with Pakistan. Attacks in Afghanistan leads to the logically result of placing infrastructure someplace else, especially if bombing and limited local offensives are your only apparent tool.

I am aware of the recent terrorist trends in Pakistan. As America conducts more operations in the Tribal Areas, we will no doubt see even more attacks in the rest of the country.

Instability has been fairly constant in Pakistani politics since the 1980s, the current conflict has only accelerated it. It is entirely possible had there been no invasion of Afghanistan, that the Pakistani army would still have had to deal with militants in the frontier zone, triggering the same chain of events.

[W01f]

Since when have we been launching attacks in Pakistan?

September 2008

That's when it became "official", but it's probably been going on for years. Hundreds of civilians and militants have been killed in Pakistan by NATO forces. In fact there was another one today.

[Evilive]

I got an even better idea, you could just blanket the whole country with hydrogen bombs. Once the mountains are no more they won't be able to hide.