Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Recommends ‘Cheaper, Lighter’ Afghanistan Approach

Breitbart ^ | Kristina Wong

[RoosterRedux]

Blackwater founder and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince is recommending, as the Trump administration debates its Afghanistan War approach, that the U.S. military go back to its light footprint approach in Afghanistan.

Prince told the “Breitbart News Sunday” radio program that the approach – which would see CIA, special operators, and contractors working with Afghan forces to target terrorists – would be more effective and save the U.S. billions of dollars annually.

“I say go back to the model that worked, for a couple hundred years in the region, by the East India company, which used professional Western soldiers who were contracted and lived with trained with and when necessary fought with their local counterparts,” he said.

Prince said the most effective time the U.S. had in Afghanistan against terrorism was the first 12 months after the September 2001 attack, where CIA, special operators, and contractors worked with local Afghan forces with air support.

“That really put the Taliban and al Qaeda on the back heels,” he said. “The more we’ve gone into a conventional approach in Afghanistan, the more we are losing.”

Prince, who has advised the Trump campaign, argued that the light footprint approach was more effective.

“[It] literally puts them side by side, living in the same base. Believe me – if you’re a trainer, and your life depends on the success of the unit, you are going to make sure the men are paid, fed, equipped,” he said.

Prince also argued that the light footprint approach would also be “much cheaper, more sustainable” – about 10 percent of the current costs.

[blueunicorn6]

Sounds like goddamn McNamara and “The Whiz Kids”.

[silverleaf]

It gets us out of the charade of being in a “coalition” between regular US Troops and the Afghan army fighting for “democracy”

Who sees any path to a western “victory”: in Afghamistan?
In fact- what do we even define as “victory” and what do the Afghan people define as “victory”

Prince is saying go in with special operators and mercenaries and clean out the worst of the bad guys

as for the rest of it let tribal alliances and the “army” settle their own beefs as long as it’s internal.

We focus on taking out any leader of any group who poses a threat of harboring international terrorists and stop sending our guys to die from ieds on roads we build and patrol trying to build hospitals, schools and bridges for people who stone their women to death

and since we are clearly in the protectionist racket for the opium trade which thrives despite our 15 year occupation- then work with Russia Pakistan and China to back the powers that are most willing to curb it. Stop pretending we are Boy Scouts

[BeauBo]

“So pick one tribe — the roughest of the bunch — and hire them. Give them all the benefits.”

This is the traditional CIA approach - install a strongman (preferably with a big moustache) whose economic interests align with American interests, and let him manage domestic security.

Prince points out that the Taliban currently dominate the big money-making elements of the economy there (like opium), so of course they are growing.

There is a fortune in minerals in Afghanistan which could finance security and prosperity (and fund a pro-American regime). They could be like Mongolia (jokingly called Minegolia), with their government funded completely by royalties on mining rights - if a strong government could enforce security, and get a railroad built.

That is a long term solution, but it is a multi-year effort. One factor that Prince does not mention is that even before Obama’s disastrous policies, the Bush Administration explicitly excluded multi-year development efforts.

We need a way to coax mining majors into Afghanistan, and that will require a local partner who can provide security. We need to ensure that whoever ends up providing that security is not anti-American, like the Taliban.

[Little Ray]

I am pretty sure that Kipling’s poems have all the answers to any political question.

[Theoria]

No. 9/11 doesn't teach us that we have to nation build or have troops in Afghanistan. We need government to handle the basics. Immigration controls, vias overstays, etc would have prevented 9/11 not being in Afghanistan.

Part of the idea of a terrorist cell is that they can train and be anywhere, 9/11 proved that. We didn't invade Germany or Florida because the hijackers trained and lived there.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

Kipling understood Afghanistan.

“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your Gawd like a soldier.”

The place is irredeemable.

[Little Ray]

They were right.
If we weren’t ready to exterminate entire tribes, we should not have gone in.