War in Afghanistan

[Michael]

In light of the recent election debacle in Afghanistan, should NATO/US troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan?

[Americano]

Italy is planning on withdrawing its troops, a US general is requesting more US troops and current administration is studying the situation.

I'm all for letting Afghanistan go back to whatever form of government Afghanistan wants, election or no election.

Many NATO countries like these exercises as it gives their special forces an opportunity to experience live combat at minimal expense with no homeland exposure. The US does whatever the MIC (military-industrial complex) decides will keep the dollars flowing into their coffers.

[Michael]

Well, I've been a strong supporter of this NATO operation since 2001. I'm definitely coming around the idea that we are just wasting lives and treasure for no possible gain here.

I don't think it is honorable to ask our troops to die for a cause that is not achievable or goals that have no basis in reality.

If Karzai has to run against the West, I say we grant his wish and cut him loose.

[Greendruid]

Afghanistan as an operation had the possibility to hem in a threat. Unfortunately, anyone that has studied the cultures that exist under the one huge roof of Afghanistan knows that their interactions have been a long, storied exchange of power and resources for generations with much less death. This is an impossible situation to change in a generation; forget about doing it in eight years. My persistent worry about leaving the situation is the fate of women, especially those whom have become active in politics and the power vacuum that will exist if troops withdraw. Overriding this is the constant stream of bodies back to Canadian soil, back to US soil, etc. If we are standing on a principle of rights, or ethics or good government, perhaps starting at home first is the better answer.

[Americano]

Afghanistan as an operation had the possibility to hem in a threat. Unfortunately, anyone that has studied the cultures that exist under the one huge roof of Afghanistan knows that their interactions have been a long, storied exchange of power and resources for generations with much less death. This is an impossible situation to change in a generation; forget about doing it in eight years. My persistent worry about leaving the situation is the fate of women, especially those whom have become active in politics and the power vacuum that will exist if troops withdraw. Overriding this is the constant stream of bodies back to Canadian soil, back to US soil, etc. If we are standing on a principle of rights, or ethics or good government, perhaps starting at home first is the better answer.

Wars of intervention are excellent distractions to avoid starting at home.

[Greendruid]

Wars of intervention are excellent distractions to avoid starting at home.

Perhaps delay is a better word?

[Americano]

Perhaps delay is a better word?

Hopefully.

[Michael]

Afghanistan as an operation had the possibility to hem in a threat. Unfortunately, anyone that has studied the cultures that exist under the one huge roof of Afghanistan knows that their interactions have been a long, storied exchange of power and resources for generations with much less death. This is an impossible situation to change in a generation; forget about doing it in eight years. My persistent worry about leaving the situation is the fate of women, especially those whom have become active in politics and the power vacuum that will exist if troops withdraw. Overriding this is the constant stream of bodies back to Canadian soil, back to US soil, etc. If we are standing on a principle of rights, or ethics or good government, perhaps starting at home first is the better answer.

As much as I might like to help the plight of women's rights in Afghanistan, I'm not willing to support a futile battle to achieve it. That battle is only worth fighting if the goal is theoretically achievable - since I now don't see that goal as achievable, the fighting seems worthless.

Let me point out that in no way shape or form did I agree to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan strictly to support women's rights. I don't believe that western powers ought to engage in war in 3rd world countries in order to impose western liberal democratic systems.

[Americano]

As much as I might like to help the plight of women's rights in Afghanistan, I'm not willing to support a futile battle to achieve it. That battle is only worth fighting if the goal is theoretically achievable - since I now don't see that goal as achievable, the fighting seems worthless.

Let me point out that in no way shape or form did I agree to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan strictly to support women's rights. I don't believe that western powers ought to engage in war in 3rd world countries in order to impose western liberal democratic systems.

Ah, the long desired pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. That seems to still be on hold due to nationalist resistance to western colonization efforts in both countries. I'm sure Afghans understand adopting western standards for woman's rights will allow them independence without air and artillery strikes on wedding parties or villages with al Qaeda or Taliban supporters supposedly present.

[The Drunk Guy]

Let me point out that in no way shape or form did I agree to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan strictly to support women's rights. I don't believe that western powers ought to engage in war in 3rd world countries in order to impose western liberal democratic systems.
I agree that no nation has the right to send troops into another nation to decide policy. However, its already happened, so now we have a mess to clean up. I feel that they should do the same as in Iraq and train an army to defend itself and pull back from active involvement. And the sooner that pipeline's done, the sooner we can bring our boys home. ;)

[Americano]

I agree that no nation has the right to send troops into another nation to decide policy. However, its already happened, so now we have a mess to clean up. I feel that they should do the same as in Iraq and train an army to defend itself and pull back from active involvement. And the sooner that pipeline's done, the sooner we can bring our boys home. ;)


Why don't we just leave them there as the Romans did with their armies of occupation. Oh, wait; they'd have to convert to Muslim beliefs to intermarry and that would mean joining a tribe and clan and then.......

[Michael]

Why don't we just leave them there as the Romans did with their armies of occupation. Oh, wait; they'd have to convert to Muslim beliefs to intermarry and that would mean joining a tribe and clan and then.......
Romans didn't really do much of that at all. They rotated their guarrisons.

For what its worth, the Romans used Sythian & Armenian troops to guard Hadrian's Wall. British troops could be found fighting in Dacia (modern Hungary).

There was so much of this pattern it is reasonable to assume that this was Roman Imperial policy. Keeping British-raised troops in Britain could present a British usurper with a local power-base and that just wasn't the kind of thing the Empire would tolerate. Ergo, British troops were shipped east and eastern troops shipped west.

Parking retired veterans in conquered territories was more commonly a classical Greek practice - Alexander turned almost the whole Middle East Greek using this technique.

[Greendruid]

As much as I might like to help the plight of women's rights in Afghanistan, I'm not willing to support a futile battle to achieve it. That battle is only worth fighting if the goal is theoretically achievable - since I now don't see that goal as achievable, the fighting seems worthless.

Let me point out that in no way shape or form did I agree to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan strictly to support women's rights. I don't believe that western powers ought to engage in war in 3rd world countries in order to impose western liberal democratic systems.

Agreed. I make the distinction between feeling empathy for these poor women and launching a foreign-led invasion to "correct" the situation in our making. Let's be honest, our own western female population doesn't enjoy equality yet either. Again, we need to look at ourselves before even daring to preach principles like this to others without looking like foolish hypocrites.

[Michael]

Agreed. I make the distinction between feeling empathy for these poor women and launching a foreign-led invasion to "correct" the situation in our making. Let's be honest, our own western female population doesn't enjoy equality yet either. Again, we need to look at ourselves before even daring to preach principles like this to others without looking like foolish hypocrites.
Yes - very good point about "women's rights" in western countries. Women generally seemed to be of mixed opinions regarding the benefits of "true equality". Westerners shouldn't be lecturing the 3rd world on such issues (especially at the point of a gun) until we have our own house straightened out.

A line from David Bowie comes to mind... (one of my favorites)...

"Don't lean on me ma'am because you can't afford the ticket back from suffragette city"

[Michael]

One thing that has to be front and center here is that US/NATO military efforts in Afghanistan are pointless if the Afghan government that we are supporting is illegitimate.

That was the primary problem the US faced in Vietnam.

Without a viable Afghan government for westerners to support, counter-insurgency operations are just a fool's game.

[Americano]

One thing that has to be front and center here is that US/NATO military efforts in Afghanistan are pointless if the Afghan government that we are supporting is illegitimate.

That was the primary problem the US faced in Vietnam.

Without a viable Afghan government for westerners to support, counter-insurgency operations are just a fool's game.

While I don't have any personal experience with it, from everything I read corruption levels in Karzai's government make the former S. Vietnam 'democratic' regime look like pikers.

[Michael]

While I don't have any personal experience with it, from everything I read corruption levels in Karzai's government make the former S. Vietnam 'democratic' regime look like pikers.
Corruption is one thing - democratic legitimacy is another.

US/NATO forces can work with a corrupt, but legitimate government in Afghanistan. US/NATO forces cannot work with an illegitimate government without becoming illegitimate themselves.

(for example, massive levels of contractor corruption in the US doesn't affect US democratic legitimacy itself)

[Zarquon]

Have you heard of Stanley McChrystal's report (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf)?
Its rather frank and pragmatic, though perhaps a little too late.

Its sad that Americans(lawmakers and citizens alike) can't stomach the consequences of their decisions, or realize their responsibility for resolving this mess, by at least dismantling the Al Qaeda networks and building a viable security apparatus in Afghanistan, rather than just pulling the plug, and letting Taliban just take over, thereby pleasing and emboldening Pakistan to wage dirty war with India, and perpetuating the misconception of a 'demoralized' and 'debauched' West, incapable of doing anything tough .

[Americano]

Have you heard of Stanley McChrystal's report (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf)?
Its rather frank and pragmatic, though perhaps a little too late.

Its sad that Americans(lawmakers and citizens alike) can't stomach the consequences of their decisions, or realize their responsibility for resolving this mess, by at least dismantling the Al Qaeda networks and building a viable security apparatus in Afghanistan, rather than just pulling the plug, and letting Taliban just take over, thereby pleasing and emboldening Pakistan to wage dirty war with India, and perpetuating the misconception of a 'demoralized' and 'debauched' West, incapable of doing anything tough .

I got about half-way through the report before my eyes crossed from bureaucracy-speak and seemingly endless repetition. From the report the fact that he's a commanding general is a shock.

Without a full military occupation of Afghanistan and Pakistan using massive troop numbers that allow total domination (NATO will not operate in Pakistan) and denying them funding from the Sauds how can al Qaeda be dismantled?

We in the US are accustomed to poor foreign policy decisions initiated by our MIC (military-industrial complex).

[Americano]

Recommended:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/watch.html

The Star, a very impressive and accomplished individual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart

[Donkey]

I got about half-way through the report before my eyes crossed from bureaucracy-speak and seemingly endless repetition. From the report the fact that he's a commanding general is a shock.

Without a full military occupation of Afghanistan and Pakistan using massive troop numbers that allow total domination (NATO will not operate in Pakistan) and denying them funding from the Sauds how can al Qaeda be dismantled?

We in the US are accustomed to poor foreign policy decisions initiated by our MIC (military-industrial complex).
Movements like al-Qaeda can never be dismantled with weapons.

[Michael]

We in the US are accustomed to poor foreign policy decisions initiated by our MIC (military-industrial complex).

More war and lots of it. What's not to like? :shrug:

They are at least consistent and predictable.

[Americano]

Recommended:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/watch.html

The Star, a very impressive and accomplished individual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart

(bump)

[Michael]

The Star, a very impressive and accomplished individual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart
Wow! That's a very impressive resume!

Recommended:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/watch.html

Thankfully they had a transcript! (I don't seem to process information very well from audio-visual clips - I much prefer to read the words)

And yes, I must say that I've come around to pretty much the same conclusions as Rory Stewart is talking about. Nation-building in Afghanistan is a massive project that is way beyond anything the west is doing in Afghanistan.

I considered the reference to Afghanistan being 20-30 years behind Pakistan in nation-state development to be particularly poignant. The fact Kabul has no sewage or garbage system speaks to the 'pre-modern' society we're dealing with there.

Indeed, my support for the NATO operation in Afghanistan was originally based on doing exactly what Stewart is suggesting here - a rotating NATO force of 10-15,000 troops there almost permanently for the next couple of decades. That size of a foreign army is not an "occupation" and wouldn't be seen as one. The goal ought to be long-term nation-building by training/supporting the Afghan army.

As it stands now, I believe the annual dollar cost of western forces based in Afghanistan exceeds the Afghan GDP. This is dangerously destablizing - the size/cost of the US military in Afghanistan is larger than the Afghanistan economy! :eek:

[The Drunk Girl]

Recommended:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/watch.html

The Star, a very impressive and accomplished individual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart

He makes quite a bit of sense almost to the point of asking, "why didn't we do this to begin with?" With his suggestions, there is a happy medium that would be beneficial and satisfactory to everyone.

[Michael]

He makes quite a bit of sense almost to the point of asking, "why didn't we do this to begin with?" With his suggestions, there is a happy medium that would be beneficial and satisfactory to everyone.

No, that's not a solution the MIC will be happy with. They want endless war using airstrikes (that use up nice expensive ordinance). They'd rather attack Iran than Afghanistan for the same reason Dick Cheney stated back in 2002 - there ain't nothing worth bombing in Afghanistan.

[The Drunk Girl]

No, that's not a solution the MIC will be happy with. They want endless war using airstrikes (that use up nice expensive ordinance). They'd rather attack Iran than Afghanistan for the same reason Dick Cheney stated back in 2002 - there ain't nothing worth bombing in Afghanistan.

Yes, I understand that, but one would like to think (or perhaps wish) that the MIC would acknowledge/utilize/enforce Stewart's arguments and suggestions. If so, I could see them being that happy medium for all sides of the spectrum regarding the public (which should be a number one priority for the government, right?)

Seeing the effects of what the government has done post 9/11 has been really disheartening for me. How can you be "proud to be an American" with all this going on? Has it gotten us anywhere?...and we all know the answer to that.

[Americano]

Wow! That's a very impressive resume!


Thankfully they had a transcript! (I don't seem to process information very well from audio-visual clips - I much prefer to read the words)

I'm much the same, I seldom watch a clip unless the subject is technical or humor.

And yes, I must say that I've come around to pretty much the same conclusions as Rory Stewart is talking about. Nation-building in Afghanistan is a massive project that is way beyond anything the west is doing in Afghanistan.

I considered the reference to Afghanistan being 20-30 years behind Pakistan in nation-state development to be particularly poignant. The fact Kabul has no sewage or garbage system speaks to the 'pre-modern' society we're dealing with there.

Indeed, my support for the NATO operation in Afghanistan was originally based on doing exactly what Stewart is suggesting here - a rotating NATO force of 10-15,000 troops there almost permanently for the next couple of decades. That size of a foreign army is not an "occupation" and wouldn't be seen as one. The goal ought to be long-term nation-building by training/supporting the Afghan army.

As it stands now, I believe the annual dollar cost of western forces based in Afghanistan exceeds the Afghan GDP. This is dangerously destablizing - the size/cost of the US military in Afghanistan is larger than the Afghanistan economy! :eek:

Opium is now 'officially' listed as 30% of Afghan GDP. Probably much higher when considering reporting methodology in a war-torn country with high illiteracy. The very idea of Afghanistan's current government fielding an army/police force large enough to stabilize the country is preposterous.

[Americano]

Yes, I understand that, but one would like to think (or perhaps wish) that the MIC would acknowledge/utilize/enforce Stewart's arguments and suggestions. If so, I could see them being that happy medium for all sides of the spectrum regarding the public (which should be a number one priority for the government, right?)

Seeing the effects of what the government has done post 9/11 has been really disheartening for me. How can you be "proud to be an American" with all this going on? Has it gotten us anywhere?...and we all know the answer to that.

We all know the MIC has been enriched and expanded, the purpose of any and all of our past foreign intervention policy efforts. The pay and benefits of enlisted cannon fodder now far exceed the private sector for comparable entry level jobs.

[Lily]

I'm not even sure what we're doing in Afghanistan. Are we there to rout out al-Qaeda? Are we there to stablize the Afghan government? Are we there to prevent the Taliban from taking control? I honestly don't know.

[Americano]

I'm not even sure what we're doing in Afghanistan. Are we there to rout out al-Qaeda? Are we there to stablize the Afghan government? Are we there to prevent the Taliban from taking control? I honestly don't know.

For the first time in eight years, current US administration seems to be pondering those same questions. With I believe 68,000 US combat troops there and an even larger number of 'contractors', it's a money pit the MIC will fight tooth and nail to perpetuate and expand. Hello Vietnam No. 2.

[Michael]

I'm not even sure what we're doing in Afghanistan. Are we there to rout out al-Qaeda? Are we there to stablize the Afghan government? Are we there to prevent the Taliban from taking control? I honestly don't know.

Those are three different policies requiring three different strategies.

That is indeed the key problem with US policy in Afghanistan. One must choose one policy and stick to it. One cannot announce one policy to serve one goal and expect that same policy to serve the other two gaols similtaneously. That strategy always fails.

[Lily]

I'm hearing different opinions on how many troops we need to send there, from 10,000 to 40,000 more. I'm not hearing any politician saying we need to abandon Afghanistan. But, if there is no one clear mission, how can anyone truly evaluate a strategy?

[The Drunk Girl]

I'm hearing different opinions on how many troops we need to send there, from 10,000 to 40,000 more. I'm not hearing any politician saying we need to abandon Afghanistan. But, if there is no one clear mission, how can anyone truly evaluate a strategy?


They can't evaluate a fucking strategy...none of them can, unless it's a strategy to put money in their own pockets. Every single politician says what they think the public wants to hear, and even though some might hit the nail on the head, it is not the easy. Sure you might have some that are truly sincere in what they are saying and what they truly want, but once they get in that seat of power, it becomes oh-too-obvious that what they really want isn't going to go.


We, the fucking people, have no power, (no, it shouldn't be that way, but in reality who the fuck are we to them?) the ones with the money do whatever they want, and we, the people get shit on in the end. They brainwash the ones---the many--- that they can (have you seen those Marine and Army Corp. commercials? God, they make me sick!) And, people like us...well we're left hanging out to dry, because we know too much, and therefore we are specifically and especially ignored. Our government wants us to be stupid. FUCK THEM!

This is why I fucking keep my nose out of politics: it pisses me off so much with the people "in charge" and America as a whole, myself included. We rant and rant... and rant... and rant. What good is that doing?!?! Yeah, go ahead...write your Congressman. Go right ahead. Tell me what you get?... Some nice little letter telling you that they are “trying” to meet your needs and demands and wants? BULLSHIT. It's all fucking bullshit.


And, trust me, I know I am just as guilty, if not more than the next person, but what good does it do if we are REALLY not doing anything about it?


(Lily: This tangent that I have gone off on reflects nothing on you :))

[Lily]

You're drunk now, aren't you? :lol:

[Evangeline]

I don't know.

I am glad that President Obama is taking time to evaluate the whole situation instead of listening to his gut, as our last President said he did.

I don't want to see the Taleban get back in control to stone women to death and treat them like less than human. But I'm anti-war at heart...so.....

I do hope the Iraq war can be done with soon so we stop spending trillions killing people there. We really can't afford these wars anymore.

It's all just such a huge mess Bush left behind. I've noticed Obama is frowning a lot lately.

[Americano]

They can't evaluate a fucking strategy...none of them can, unless it's a strategy to put money in their own pockets. Every single politician says what they think the public wants to hear, and even though some might hit the nail on the head, it is not the easy. Sure you might have some that are truly sincere in what they are saying and what they truly want, but once they get in that seat of power, it becomes oh-too-obvious that what they really want isn't going to go.


We, the fucking people, have no power, (no, it shouldn't be that way, but in reality who the fuck are we to them?) the ones with the money do whatever they want, and we, the people get shit on in the end. They brainwash the ones---the many--- that they can (have you seen those Marine and Army Corp. commercials? God, they make me sick!) And, people like us...well we're left hanging out to dry, because we know too much, and therefore we are specifically and especially ignored. Our government wants us to be stupid. FUCK THEM!

This is why I fucking keep my nose out of politics: it pisses me off so much with the people "in charge" and America as a whole, myself included. We rant and rant... and rant... and rant. What good is that doing?!?! Yeah, go ahead...write your Congressman. Go right ahead. Tell me what you get?... Some nice little letter telling you that they are “trying” to meet your needs and demands and wants? BULLSHIT. It's all fucking bullshit.


And, trust me, I know I am just as guilty, if not more than the next person, but what good does it do if we are REALLY not doing anything about it?


(Lily: This tangent that I have gone off on reflects nothing on you :))

The best advice I received on that subject is to keep close track of what the ruling elite are doing, have planned and protect myself accordingly. We commoners are at their mercy.

[dilettante]

The best advice I received on that subject is to keep close track of what the ruling elite are doing, have planned and protect myself accordingly. We commoners are at their mercy.

If only we, as a group, had some say in who held public office...

[Evangeline]

Drunk Girl - I know it's overwhelming. But put your senators and congressman in your cell phone and every day when you hear some shit going on you disagree with, or when you hear something they did that you like, call them, tell their phone answering staff person your opinion and you'll have a bigger voice than most people.

Most people aren't like us, they don't care at all, they don't pay attention, they have no idea. Some don't even vote!

They have no voice.

We do have a voice, and I call my fuckers up several times each month to tell them what I think about this and that.

It feels empowering. And I think it probably makes somewhat of a difference, especially when you tell them you're not voting for them next election. I've told DiFi's office that several times in the past few years.

She's for escalation right now, the whole 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and it's because her husband has a stake in the military industrial complex. That's my next phone call, tomorrow.....

I don't know if Obama should send more troops or not, but 40,000 is too many IMHO. Although they are saying they need to secure the towns and keep the bad guys out so the people start trusting us and stop trusting the Taleban for security.....

I'm just sick of war....so it's really a conundrum for me......

[The Drunk Girl]

You're drunk now, aren't you? :lol:

I wasn't then, but on my way.;) (But, my mouth does start to sound more like that of a sailor when I have had a few in me)

...No, I'm fine, but it really does piss me off. It's a shame, you have someone like Michael who is more up to date and informed than most of the people in our own country and he isn't even from here. Like I said, I will take responsibility for my own ignorance, but I have seen enough to see that it is the same pattern over and over again.

And, yes Americano we are at their God-damned mercy. What a damn pity our country has become

[The Drunk Girl]

...I need to change my name from something that isn't so obvious :lol:

[Lily]

If only we, as a group, had some say in who held public office...

Decisions are made by those who show up. Yes, true. We have the ballot box, but do we truly have any say in who we ultimately cast that ballot for in the presidential election? He/She who has the cash, not necessarily the cachet....

Drunk Girl - I know it's overwhelming. But put your senators and congressman in your cell phone and every day when you hear some shit going on you disagree with, or when you hear something they did that you like, call them, tell their phone answering staff person your opinion and you'll have a bigger voice than most people.

Most people aren't like us, they don't care at all, they don't pay attention, they have no idea. Some don't even vote!

They have no voice.

We do have a voice, and I call my fuckers up several times each month to tell them what I think about this and that.

It feels empowering. And I think it probably makes somewhat of a difference, especially when you tell them you're not voting for them next election. I've told DiFi's office that several times in the past few years.

She's for escalation right now, the whole 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and it's because her husband has a stake in the military industrial complex. That's my next phone call, tomorrow.....

I don't know if Obama should send more troops or not, but 40,000 is too many IMHO. Although they are saying they need to secure the towns and keep the bad guys out so the people start trusting us and stop trusting the Taleban for security.....

I'm just sick of war....so it's really a conundrum for me......

I call and email my representatives, too. Not enough to be labeled a kook, but enough to let them know I'm watching and listening. It is empowering. My Congresswoman is a throwback to the Stone Age. She's in the same league with Michele Bachmann, but without the political aspirations or the mouth. I imagine her sitting in her office, quietly plotting ways to dismantle the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments.

...I need to change my name from something that isn't so obvious :lol:

Nah. I like your name. Don't ever change. :)

[Michael]

...I need to change my name from something that isn't so obvious :lol:
Well, if the username doesn't make the point, your avatar does! :lol:

[Zarquon]

I'd like to draw your attention to this piece in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/10/26/091026taco_talk_coll
Specifically this part:
Karzai’s apparent betrayal has the capacity to shock, but it would be a mistake to overemphasize his failings, just as it was an error to overemphasize his early successes. American interests in Afghanistan—namely, the disablement of Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and the pursuit of a region free from the threat of Taliban revolution—should not be wholly confused with the quest for an honest President in Kabul, where rulers have not often been trustworthy.
A second round of voting now looks probable; it could help calm the country, or it could make things worse. In any event, the election is not yet an utter catastrophe
---------------------
It goes without saying that Afghans have had enough of violence. Abdullah’s restraint signals a broader, resilient desire among many political and tribal leaders to avoid having their country descend into chaos again. This is the opening that American policy has repeatedly failed to grasp since the Taliban’s fall in late 2001: an opportunity to reject the false expediency of warlords and indispensable men, in favor of deepening participatory, Afghan-led political reform and national reconciliation.And this observation:
Since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, attempts by foreign powers to shape events there have repeatedly been thwarted by what intelligence analysts call “mirror imaging,” which is the tendency of decision-makers in one country to judge counterparts in another through the prism of their own language and politics.
-----American discourse barely refers to Afghan leaders by name or to the particular equations of the country’s diverse provinces.
Instead, historical analogies and abstract concepts abound—arguments about “legitimacy” and “governance,” as if the Taliban were motivated primarily by the “Rights of Man.”(:lol:)

[Americano]

I'd like to draw your attention to this piece in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/10/26/091026taco_talk_coll
Specifically this part:
And this observation:

The US has long pursued a 'one size fits all' policy in its interventions.

[Michael]

I'd like to draw your attention to this piece in the New Yorker:
An interesting article certainly.

However, I think it is quite incorrect to refer to any "early successes" of Karzai as there quite simply are none to speak of. The US-NATO conquest of Afghanistan quite promptly turned into a small NATO protected enclave in Kabul the minute Karzai took power (in Kabul). It was said from the beginning that Karzai's power extended only into the suburbs of Kabul.

The ONLY redeeming feature of Karzai was that he (allegedly) was in Washington's back pocket. :shrug:

I might add that Karzai has been precisely what I asserted he was a half-dozen years ago when the US military 'installed him' - a hand-picked Bush-crony up to his ears in corruption, CIA funny-business and nebulus gas-pipeline plans with American backers, like George W. Bush, willing to do business with the Taliban if it suits their interests to do so.

Specifically this part:
And this observation:
I think that's fancy rhetoric that is deceptive.

Yes, it is a common error of imperialist powers to make precisely that mistake.

However, Canada (and Germany, for example) are not imperialist powers. Canadian's support for 'regime-change' in Afghanistan is conditional upon democratic legitimacy. If the Karzai regime doesn't have political legitimacy on Canada's terms, then Canada cannot send troops to support that regime.

What's the difference between one corrupt dictatorial faction and another one? Canada has no business picking sides and spending blood and treasure in such foreign disputes that don't concern Canada's business.

NATO invoked Article 5 on 9/12 for the purpose of invading Afghanistan in order to depose the Taliban who provided material support to Osama bin Laden to carry out the 9/11 attacks. As a Canadian, I fully supported this mission.

However, I believe that mission is done and gone now. And on the new terms of the mission, I say Canada has no business supporting illegitimate government in Afghanistan. How can one tell the difference between one corrupt and undemocratic regime and any other? They are all the same.

The US government may well choose to play imperialist games in central asia - that is absolutely no business for NATO.

[Michael]

Here's a good thing to keep in mind...

Corruption now 'dominates and paralyzes the society,' David Halberstam observed. American officials perceived the problems but they could not find solutions. ... The Embassy pressed the government to remove officials known to be corrupt, but with little result. 'You fight like hell to get someone removed and most times you fail and you just make it worse,' a frustrated American explained to Halberstam. 'And then on occasions when you win, why hell, they give you someone just as bad.' The United States found to its chagrin that as its commitment increased its leverage diminished. Concern with corruption and inefficiency was always balanced by fear that tough action might alienate the government or bring about its collapse. Lodge and Westmoreland were inclined to accept the situation and deal with other problems."

Source: George C. Herring, America's Longest War: The United States in Vietnam, 1950-1975., 1st. ed., pp. 162-63.

I think this is an easily overlooked point. Vietnam wasn't known for being particularly corrupt prior to the arrival of US forces. And according to present corruption indexes, Vietnam is not a particularly corrupt country. But during the time the US military occupied that country, it was ground zero for being the most corrupt place on the planet.

In other words, it does seem as if the presence of a US military occupation creates massive corruption.

[Americano]

Here's a good thing to keep in mind...



Source: George C. Herring, America's Longest War: The United States in Vietnam, 1950-1975., 1st. ed., pp. 162-63.

I think this is an easily overlooked point. Vietnam wasn't known for being particularly corrupt prior to the arrival of US forces. And according to present corruption indexes, Vietnam is not a particularly corrupt country. But during the time the US military occupied that country, it was ground zero for being the most corrupt place on the planet.

In other words, it does seem as if the presence of a US military occupation creates massive corruption.

Karzai's government being the latest example. In 2008 it ranked #5 on the
Corruption Perceptions Index, right behind Somalia (#1), Myanmar (2), Iraq (3) and Haiti (4).

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008

[Michael]

Karzai's government being the latest example. In 2008 it ranked #5 on the
Corruption Perceptions Index, right behind Somalia (#1), Myanmar (2), Iraq (3) and Haiti (4).

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008

Irony of ironies. Somalia, Iraq and Haiti have all been invaded by the US military.

[Americano]

Irony of ironies. Somalia, Iraq and Haiti have all been invaded by the US military.

If the US practice of special interests enriching elected officials at public expense was included in the index we'd be in that bottom tier.

[Michael]

If the US practice of special interests enriching elected officials at public expense was included in the index we'd be in that bottom tier.
But Congress has legalized it, so that doesn't count! :lol:

Indeed, few things are more weird than reading about common political practices in Washington that would put you in jail for ten years if you did it in Ottawa.

[Americano]

But Congress has legalized it, so that doesn't count! :lol:

Indeed, few things are more weird than reading about common political practices in Washington that would put you in jail for ten years if you did it in Ottawa.

In the US when you get down to the muni level common political practices would get you jailed in Somalia.

[Donkey]

What are some of your thoughts on recent events/revelations?

[Michael]

What are some of your thoughts on recent events/revelations?
Which particular events/revelations?

The US decision for increase or drawdown troops is identical to every episode with Iraq. They always increase.

Karzai is sworn in now, so his election is a done deal.

I'm curious what is the current event/revelation?

[Donkey]

Which particular events/revelations?

The US decision for increase or drawdown troops is identical to every episode with Iraq. They always increase.

Karzai is sworn in now, so his election is a done deal.

I'm curious what is the current event/revelation?
The memo from the envoy to Afghanistan asking Obama to pretty please not increase troops/Obama (supposedly) rejecting all the options presented thus far.

[Americano]

The memo from the envoy to Afghanistan asking Obama to pretty please not increase troops/Obama (supposedly) rejecting all the options presented thus far.

Here's a link on that development:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_AFGHANISTAN?SITE=CACRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It'll be interesting to see if Obama stands up to the MIC. I'm reading a lot of support for a couple of US special operations bases in Afghanistan to thwart Al Qaeda build-up and letting Afghanistan do whatever it decides to do, Karzai or the Taliban.

[Zarquon]

Frankly, I'm more worried about Pakistan, not the nukes falling into radical hands, but a fall of the civilian govt, and a possible takeover of that country by the Taliban or a civil-war like situation.
That country is Exhibit A of what: a corrupt and aloof elite, a national identity based entirely on religion, and an unchecked military can do to a country.
The impoverished, uneducated, and paranoid people there still believe that India is there No.1 problem and that the the recent attacks were perpetrated by Mossad and RAW(Indian foreign intelligence)!

[Americano]

Frankly, I'm more worried about Pakistan, not the nukes falling into radical hands, but a fall of the civilian govt, and a possible takeover of that country by the Taliban or a civil-war like situation.
That country is Exhibit A of what: a corrupt and aloof elite, a national identity based entirely on religion, and an unchecked military can do to a country.
The impoverished, uneducated, and paranoid people there still believe that India is there No.1 problem and that the the recent attacks were perpetrated by Mossad and RAW(Indian foreign intelligence)!

(my bold)

Are you discussing Pakistan or the US?

[Michael]

(my bold)

Are you discussing Pakistan or the US?

:rofl:

[Zarquon]

Funny as that maybe, its not true.
The American military is not in complete control of the country, and has never mounted a coup or intends to do so; America may have a majority christian population, but its not a Christian nation, its more of a theist nation, and church and state are separated, though not nearly as much as they ought to be.
And some of the American elite are actually enlightened and caring individuals, and certainly not aloof; with that said, however, I do not deny their cynical exploitation of the masses and their myopic agendas.
And given the existence of 'tea-baggers' and Glenn Beck supporters, its more a case of the unenlightened being undone by their own incuriosity rather than straightforward fascism.

On the other hand, what we're witnessing in Pakistan is a state which had a dubious raison d'etre to begin with and having become systematically dysfunctional and a ploy in the great game of many a power(first US, now PRC) , falling apart at its core.
I mean the very legitimacy of the state has been undermined due to decades of mis-governance and an islamicization policy which has back-fired.

[Michael]

And some of the American elite are actually enlightened and caring individuals, and certainly not aloof; with that said, however, I do not deny their cynical exploitation of the masses and their myopic agendas. And given the existence of 'tea-baggers' and Glenn Beck supporters, its more a case of the unenlightened being undone by their own incuriosity rather than straightforward fascism.
This is entirely beside the point, but fascism is never advanced as a policy by anyone.

In all cases is adopted as a solution to the problem of non-functional government.

The teabaggers are working hard on the "making government non-functional" part.

[Michael]

The memo from the envoy to Afghanistan asking Obama to pretty please not increase troops/Obama (supposedly) rejecting all the options presented thus far.

To be honest, I don't see anything going on here at all other than political theater.

To put it all very brief and simple: Obama is trying to demonstrate that he's not Bush, even though he's making a decision that is entirely in-sync with the Bush-doctrine of US foreign policy (aggressive pseudo-democracy promotion).

For context, it must be remembered how GW Bush dealt with such decisions in the past. Basically, all military decisions were made by Bush/Cheney/Rove based entirely on political considerations and then dicated to the Pentagon. If the top general didn't like the decision, he was replaced by one that would. This is not a popular or common way for the US President to do the 'Commander-in-Chief' job, but its not unprecedented at all since that's basically what Lincoln did all throughout the Civil War (and the policy in Lincoln's case turned out to be a necessary and successful one).

The top military brass (and the media that covers it) both heavily skew to the Republicans so Bush easily got away with this even though the military brass hates being treated like that.

Now Obama has been well briefed on dealing with the Pentagon - he's been very careful so far and making all the 'politically correct' moves. The Pentagon has the collective emotional maturity of a cloying 9 year old girl towards most Democratic Presidents. That is to say, they will play along and be very sweet and courteous until they don't get what they want and then they will scream and cry and hold their breath until they get it. Obama is being extra careful to make sure he doesn't give the Pentagon the opportunity to do this. Rightly so I think. Obama's dealings with the Pentagon are politically loaded on several sides (lots of buried minefields there!).

So what I'm saying here is that Obama is clearly trying to break away from Bush model of dealing with the Pentagon brass, preferring to use the traditional and constitutionally proper channels for the relationship between the civilian executive and the uniformed brass. That means that Obama is going to basically accept whatever it is the Pentagon is asking for in Afghanistan. The politics of the issue says Obama has no public mandate to pull out of Afghanistan and so he's not going to even consider that option. Obama has no other real political choice in the matter. The Pentagon wants a significant troop increase and is asking for 30-40,000 more troops. Obama is going to accept that just because he has no other political option.

So what we are seeing now is just the expected political theater that always attends to such pandering to the Pentagon. The analysis from the US Ambassador in Afghanistan is significant because he's a retired four-star bastard and because he's been based in Afghanistan, he's expected to know something about what's going on there. The 'small-footprint' approach being advanced here is exactly the policy that a small minority of analysts favor - as can be seen by the link (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15601&postcount=20) Americano posted earlier in this thread (expert Rory Stewart). I tend to agree with that approach - but I'm willing to acknowledge that it has ZERO mainstream political support and Obama just doesn't have the balls or the political support to go that route at this time.

As such, Obama is (and always has been) in no position to do anything but exactly what the Pentagon is asking for. In this case, that means 30-40,000 new troops to Afghanistan. Obama is delaying the decision process if only to give some dignity to his cave-in to the Washington establishment, the status quo and against the party-base. The delayed decision is about the only actual power Obama has over the Pentagon so that's the leverage he's trying to use.

Bottom line is that the words of a disgruntled ex-general with a political appointment can be safely ignored (even if he's entirely correct).

As I noted in reply previously, Karzai has been officially inaugurated and the Pentagon wants to send in 30-40,000 troops. US is married to this policy and has been for a half-dozen years already. They are not about to change. It took five years of concerted efforts to get the Iraq policy changed - it will take at least that long to switch gears in Afghanistan (if at all).

[Americano]

.

As I noted in reply previously, Karzai has been officially inaugurated and the Pentagon wants to send in 30-40,000 troops. US is married to this policy and has been for a half-dozen years already. They are not about to change. It took five years of concerted efforts to get the Iraq policy changed - it will take at least that long to switch gears in Afghanistan (if at all).

Pentagon contracts have been let, 'defense' industries (sorry, the defense label is so misleading it sticks in my craw) have projected equity market earnings based on those contracts, political contributions have been made by those industries, cannon fodder has been trained and equipped for expanded US occupation of Afghanistan and a mere president is expected to upset that applecart with reality?

[Michael]

Pentagon contracts have been let, 'defense' industries (sorry, the defense label is so misleading it sticks in my craw) have projected equity market earnings based on those contracts, political contributions have been made by those industries, cannon fodder has been trained and equipped for expanded US occupation of Afghanistan and a mere president is expected to upset that applecart with reality?

Exactly. But to satisfy the base and all the skeptics, Obama is playing political theater to make it look like he's considering all the other options carefully before doing exactly what the Pentagon wants.

[Americano]

Exactly. But to satisfy the base and all the skeptics, Obama is playing political theater to make it look like he's considering all the other options carefully before doing exactly what the Pentagon wants.

I say it'll be 20-30,000 troops for public consumption with some phony deadline and enough 'reconstruction funds' to require another 5-10,000 'security experts' training Afghans to fight Karzai's war against the Taliban, mercenaries to we common folk, but maybe NATO's contribution. Another bottomless pit of US public stupidity. This declining empire seems to race to its downfall.

[Americano]

An interesting article on the degree of Afghanistan corruption associated with Karza in just one sector:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK19Df01.html

As in Iraq, US companies are the paymasters through USAID. Foreign aid supplies 90% of Afghanistan government spending.

[Michael]

As was noted previously, the US military budget in Afghanistan is many times larger than the entire GDP of Afghanistan. I think this factor explains everything about the issue of corruption in Afghanistan.

You want to know how to eliminate 90% of corruption in Afghanistan? Withdraw all US forces and spending from Afghanistan.

The two elements are integrally connected. The present level of corruption in Afghanistan has everything to do with the present level of opportunity provided by disproportionately massive US spending in Afghanistan.

This is Vietnam all over again. Identical issues at play here.

[Americano]

As was noted previously, the US military budget in Afghanistan is many times larger than the entire GDP of Afghanistan. I think this factor explains everything about the issue of corruption in Afghanistan.

You want to know how to eliminate 90% of corruption in Afghanistan? Withdraw all US forces and spending from Afghanistan.

The two elements are integrally connected. The present level of corruption in Afghanistan has everything to do with the present level of opportunity provided by disproportionately massive US spending in Afghanistan.

This is Vietnam all over again. Identical issues at play here.

Without a doubt. I still view post ww2 US geopolitics as failed colonialism with no plunder.

[Michael]

Without a doubt. I still view post ww2 US geopolitics as failed colonialism with no plunder.

Yes, it does appear to be the result, but I don't think that's the animating goal.

I use the 'geo-strategic' approach to analyze or conceptualize US foreign policy actions. That is to say, I believe the US government seeks to advance US military-strategic control over as much of the globe as is possible. I accept this paradigm because it seems to fit with most of the facts on the ground - particularly the way the US will accept alliances with ANYONE at any time, as long as it is deemed to directly contribute to the goal (even if only in the short term).

No other explanation seems to plausibly fit the US Government's long track record in foreign relations of so often supporting murderous despots and opposing democratic regimes (with US military connections being the only long term institutional continuity - besides 'the church' - in places like Pakistan, Philipines, Turkey, Indonesia etc.).

[Americano]

Yes, it does appear to be the result, but I don't think that's the animating goal.

Agreed, my analysis is focused on results, not desire.

I use the 'geo-strategic' approach to analyze or conceptualize US foreign policy actions. That is to say, I believe the US government seeks to advance US military-strategic control over as much of the globe as is possible. I accept this paradigm because it seems to fit with most of the facts on the ground - particularly the way the US will accept alliances with ANYONE at any time, as long as it is deemed to directly contribute to the goal (even if only in the short term).

It was an obvious plan when the US was fresh from victory participation in a world war, becoming the world's largest creditor nation and dominating free-world trade. The cold war providing the catalyst for end justifies the means rationalization.

No other explanation seems to plausibly fit the US Government's long track record in foreign relations of so often supporting murderous despots and opposing democratic regimes (with US military connections being the only long term institutional continuity - besides 'the church' - in places like Pakistan, Philipines, Turkey, Indonesia etc.).

Gonna be tough to continue following that failed plan when we've exhausted our credit and the US general public standard of living takes a dive.

[Donkey]

Without a doubt. I still view post ww2 US geopolitics as failed colonialism with no plunder.
No plunder?

Plenty of plunder, for the right interests.

[Americano]

No plunder?

Plenty of plunder, for the right interests.

Very true but I was speaking from a viewpoint of national interest. There's no way military and aid costs were recovered by tax revenue from special interest profits. Hell, some had so many public subsidies they paid no taxes. As I recall European countries discovered that same problem of conquests not penciling out for the government before they granted post ww2 independence to a majority of their former colonies.

[Donkey]

Very true but I was speaking from a viewpoint of national interest. There's no way military and aid costs were recovered by tax revenue from special interest profits. Hell, some had so many public subsidies they paid no taxes. As I recall European countries discovered that same problem of conquests not penciling out for the government before they granted post ww2 independence to a majority of their former colonies.
I'm inclined to think that living in an imperialist nation is never particularly great for the average denizen. I've had this thought for a while, I would like to try to compare it with various empires, modern and old.

[Americano]

I'm inclined to think that living in an imperialist nation is never particularly great for the average denizen. I've had this thought for a while, I would like to try to compare it with various empires, modern and old.

I agree with that. Post ww2 US free-world economic domination made it feasible for the US's imperialistic stance up until the late '60s when money was no problem. The cold war generated public support while that public enjoyed a high standard of living, but the money always rules. We started running out of money (we actually began redistributing it upward) when we went off the gold standard and became a net oil importer. By the late '70s, it was downhill all the way for the general public to our present circumstances.

[Michael]

I'm inclined to think that living in an imperialist nation is never particularly great for the average denizen. I've had this thought for a while, I would like to try to compare it with various empires, modern and old.

I agree with that. Post ww2 US free-world economic domination made it feasible for the US's imperialistic stance up until the late '60s when money was no problem. The cold war generated public support while that public enjoyed a high standard of living, but the money always rules. We started running out of money (we actually began redistributing it upward) when we went off the gold standard and became a net oil importer. By the late '70s, it was downhill all the way for the general public to our present circumstances.

It would be interesting to look at the British and the Roman examples to see if we can see a similar trend. I only mention those two as they are the ones with lots of data generally available.

[Greendruid]

Based on the information given in today's post by Michael, something that has been brewing in the pot for several months if not years now, I vehemently re-state my opinion in the OP. This war must end, now:

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=928

There are millions of veterans rolling in their graves to see the result of their sacrifice used in this manner. For what? Disgusting. Harper should be sent to the Hague and let the world decide what is appropriate as punishment. This is the only remedy to ensure re-gaining our role as a diplomatic, peaceful nation.

[Americano]

Based on the information given in today's post by Michael, something that has been brewing in the pot for several months if not years now, I vehemently re-state my opinion in the OP. This war must end, now:

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=928

There are millions of veterans rolling in their graves to see the result of their sacrifice used in this manner. For what? Disgusting. Harper should be sent to the Hague and let the world decide what is appropriate as punishment. This is the only remedy to ensure re-gaining our role as a diplomatic, peaceful nation.

You left that position when the US became Canada's number one customer for your vast energy resources. Through US influence China was blocked from importing your oil, you finding new markets for timber and minerals, putting all your eggs in the US basket. In business we call it a dangerous level of revenue concentration.

Look at Brazil inviting Iran's president for a state visit. Canada wouldn't dare do that in fear of upsetting its violent and emotional best customer neighbor, the US.

[Michael]

You left that position when the US became Canada's number one customer for your vast energy resources. Through US influence China was blocked from importing your oil, you finding new markets for timber and minerals, putting all your eggs in the US basket. In business we call it a dangerous level of revenue concentration.

Look at Brazil inviting Iran's president for a state visit. Canada wouldn't dare do that in fear of upsetting its violent and emotional best customer neighbor, the US.
Canadian diplomacy, when run by someone other than Conservative ideologues tends to be much smarter and subtle.

No, Canada just screws up when it lets the Conservatives into power.

They always act just like American Republicans - treating the public purse as something to be cleaned out before they get kicked out. And all the same finesse of PR one learned to expect from GW Bush Administration - and lots of permission for illegal activities.

Hell, the last 'conservative' Prime Minister is still fighting after 18 years to stay out of jail (there have been three major commissions studying his potential illegal behavior). About a dozen of his hand-picked party followers have already served jail time for corruption in public office.

Apparently Mulroney thinks it helps his reputation to insist that the brown paper back with $250,000 in cash that he was given (lots of evidence to prove this) is normal business practice.

Everytime the conservatives get pushed out of office, the criminal charges start to flow. At present, there are more Parliamentary "ethics" investigations going on than in previous parliaments added together. All involve (Conservative party) government members.

[Michael]

For those of you following the debacle in Afghanistan, here is a small tidbit of information (buried deep in the article) that will go a long way to explain the mess the USA finds itself in.

akistan poses a particularly difficult problem. Mr. Obama has been highly attuned to the need to declare that the United States is not in what he recently called “an open-ended commitment” in Afghanistan.

But for years, throughout the Bush administration and into the Obama administration, American officials have been making trips to Pakistan to reassure its government that the United States has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan as it did 20 years ago, after the Soviets retreated from the country. Inside the Pakistani Army and the intelligence service, which is known as the ISI, it is an article of faith among some officers that the United States is deceiving them, and that it will replay 1989.

If that happens, some Pakistanis argue, India will fill the void in southern Afghanistan, leaving Pakistan surrounded by its longtime enemy. So any talk of exit strategies is bound to reaffirm the belief of some Pakistani officials that they have to maintain their contacts with the Taliban — their hedge against Indian encroachment.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/world/asia/25rollout.html?_r=2&hp)

To put it in a nutshell, the USA must convince American domestic audience and the Afghanis, that the US occupation of Afghanistan is only a temporary expediency. Failure to do this will cause the 'mission' to fail.

Yet at the same time, the USA must convince the Pakistanis that the mission is a permanent one that will never end. Failure to do this will cause the Pakistanis to secretly ally with the Taliban and that will cause the 'mission' to fail.

Not a particularly enviable position. One can't help but to notice that previous US foreign policy failures loom large here in causing particular difficulties with this present situation.

And that is a common theme of my critiques of US foreign policy. One fucked up policy just tends to lock the USA into more and more fucked up policies, where "following the best course" is rarely an option on the table due to widespread mistrust of the USA or previous experience with US policy has poisoned the well. That is to say, bad foreign policy decisions in the past tend to constrain one's ability to do 'good' foreign policy in the present.

Unfortunately for the USA, the rest of the world is no where near as short-sighted as the US electorate. While US voters might easily forget the idiot policies of last year, the rest of the world doesn't tend to do this.

[Americano]

The US is on its way to quickly regaining its reputation of being the world's bad guy. As you point out, all we're doing is compounding past foreign policy errors. Afghanistan is yet another Vietnam, a US created sinkhole for lives and treasure.

Merkel will have trouble sending ten additional troops to Afghanistan after her defense minister resigned for concealing the fact that German forces in Afghanistan called in US air raids on civilians. Only the police state UK (where public opinion means zero) will follow the US lead of another decade in Afghanistan.

[Americano]

"The problem of corruption in Afghanistan was highlighted recently when an international survey placed the country as the second most corrupt in the world.It was beaten only by Somalia."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8366371.stm

The article provides decent insight as to how corrupt Afghanistan is and the negative influence military occupation has spread throughout that country.

My favorite quote from the article:

"A 'bazaar-economy' has developed where every position, favour, and service can be bought and sold. One corrupt practice can be a cause and/or consequence of another corrupt practice, leading to a vicious cycle of self-perpetuation."

[Michael]

Note to Western leaders: taking out functional governments, even if they are brutally ugly/nasty/islamic/terrorist-supporters produces a situation that is categorically worse.

It is to be noted that the USA played a major role in removing functional governments from both Somalia and Afghanistan within the last ten years.

[Americano]

Note to Western leaders: taking out functional governments, even if they are brutally ugly/nasty/islamic/terrorist-supporters produces a situation that is categorically worse.

It is to be noted that the USA played a major role in removing functional governments from both Somalia and Afghanistan within the last ten years.

Is there anywhere the US has intervened that hasn't turned to shit?

[Michael]

Is there anywhere the US has intervened that hasn't turned to shit?

Is that a trick question?

Germany seems to have survived American occupation reasonably well. Can't say the same for the Japanese though. There's no other examples that aren't ugly.

[Americano]

Is that a trick question?

Germany seems to have survived American occupation reasonably well. Can't say the same for the Japanese though. There's no other examples that aren't ugly.

I should have written post ww2 interventions. That makes it easy.

[Michael]

I should have written post ww2 interventions. That makes it easy.
Actually, all you have to do is exempt WW2. Every example that I can think of either before or after WW2 fits the ugly pattern.

(Thank bloody God they failed in the War of 1812!) :lol:

[Non Sequitur]

Any thoughts on the Speech yesterday? It's being condemned from both sides (something I actually think is a good sign).

[Zarquon]

A three-year commitment with 30,000 more troops?
Well, if this doesn't work it will be more than just the Democrats who will suffer for it.

[Non Sequitur]

A three-year commitment with 30,000 more troops?
Well, if this doesn't work it will be more than just the Democrats who will suffer for it.

True enough. I would like this war to not become a partisan issue and have people work together to get it done.

I actually think the plan is a good compromise. He did listen to his commander (who, after all, was asked what was needed), but he didn't just jump blindly into support.

[Americano]

It was as expected, pacifying the MIC. I'd have preferred he flipped the MIC the bird and called for a complete withdrawal but that wasn't politically feasible. Vietnam II until 2011 when election campaigns begin.

[Americano]

A three-year commitment with 30,000 more troops?
Well, if this doesn't work it will be more than just the Democrats who will suffer for it.

Another $90B over three years for just the additional troops when Americans can't find jobs. We spend money like we have it.

[Michael]

It was as expected, pacifying the MIC. I'd have preferred he flipped the MIC the bird and called for a complete withdrawal but that wasn't politically feasible. Vietnam II until 2011 when election campaigns begin.
Yes, this is pretty much my view of the issue.

It likely will become a hot partisan issue in 2011/12 as the election approaches.

I just don't see any upside to the operation, thus I can't support such increases.

Seems like it is American fighting America's demons and Afghanistan just happens to be the name of the neighborhood of the battle.

[Michael]

Any thoughts on the Speech yesterday? It's being condemned from both sides (something I actually think is a good sign).
I've seen some of the leftwing blogers who are huge Obama fans panning this speech as Obama's worst ever - accusing him of making Bush-arguments.

Lets just say that when one announces an escalation of a war and there is virtually no applause or support for the decision, suffice it to say that this doesn't bode well at all.

Iraq was a debacle, but at least it had strong support from the US government and a substantial portion of the electorate. I just don't see the Afghan operation having that kind of support from either the government or the voters.

[Americano]

I've seen some of the leftwing blogers who are huge Obama fans panning this speech as Obama's worst ever - accusing him of making Bush-arguments.

Lets just say that when one announces an escalation of a war and there is virtually no applause or support for the decision, suffice it to say that this doesn't bode well at all.

Iraq was a debacle, but at least it had strong support from the US government and a substantial portion of the electorate. I just don't see the Afghan operation having that kind of support from either the government or the voters.

Business as usual. Voters are meaningless until 2011/2 and politicians take their marching orders from lobbyists. Nixon was elected on a platform of getting out of Vietnam and that took how many years?

[Zarquon]

Business as usual. Voters are meaningless until 2011/2 and politicians take their marching orders from lobbyists. Nixon was elected on a platform of getting out of Vietnam and that took how many years?
was it three?:sneaky:

[Americano]

was it three?:sneaky:

Seven.

[dilettante]

It appears that NATO has chosen to disregard the results of our local poll:



Allies Help McChrystal Reach Troop Goal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125992554118976499.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENextto WhatsNewsTop)

BRUSSELS -- The top official in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said 25 countries will send an additional 7,000 troops to Afghanistan next year -- a pledge that technically gives U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal the 40,000 new troops he requested.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the commitment "significant" and U.S. officials voiced optimism that allies would agree to send even more soldiers.

U.S. officials have been privately pressing France and Germany to provide additional forces. Both countries have said they are waiting until an international conference at the end of January to decide whether to commit more troops.

...

What I find most curious about all the coverage of Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is the number of people (I've heard many call in to NPR over the last few days) who voted for Obama and for some reason believe that he had pledged to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and is thus now breaking his campaign promises.
It's generally pretty easy to legitimately find a politician going back on a campaign promise; it seems to have this one so thoroughly condemned for breaking a promise he never made.

[Zarquon]

It appears that NATO has chosen to disregard the results of our local poll:


What I find most curious about all the coverage of Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is the number of people (I've heard many call in to NPR over the last few days) who voted for Obama and for some reason believe that he had pledged to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and is thus now breaking his campaign promises.
It's generally pretty easy to legitimately find a politician going back on a campaign promise; it seems to have this one so thoroughly condemned for breaking a promise he never made.
If I recall correctly, he had pledged to get out of Iraq, and escalate the Afghanistan War, terming it the right war.
But the War had been unpopular among Democrats even when he was campaigning, and when the Meltdown happened last September, the focus shifted to the economy and people conveniently forgot everything else.:rolleyes:

[Michael]

If I recall correctly, he had pledged to get out of Iraq, and escalate the Afghanistan War, terming it the right war.
But the War had been unpopular among Democrats even when he was campaigning, and when the Meltdown happened last September, the focus shifted to the economy and people conveniently forgot everything else.:rolleyes:

Indeed this is correct. There is nothing suprising about Obama ordering a troop escalation in Afghanistan as it was a significant campaign promise of his to do so.

I recall critiquing Obama at that time for that position and this was yet another reason that I favored Hillary in the primary over Obama.

Anyone who voted for Obama and didn't expect this is an idiot who wasn't paying attention.

[Americano]

I can't help but laugh at the additional NATO support in Afghanistan. 7000 additional troops divided by 28 countries averages 250 troops per country.

[Zarquon]

I can't help but laugh at the additional NATO support in Afghanistan. 7000 additional troops divided by 28 countries averages 250 troops per country.
Apparently Georgia is sending 1,000 trips even though its not part of NATO.
So, while not screwing up the Middle-East and South-Asia, America wants to rattle the Ruskies as well?

[Americano]

Apparently Georgia is sending 1,000 trips even though its not part of NATO.
So, while not screwing up the Middle-East and South-Asia, America wants to rattle the Ruskies as well?

I wonder how many of the Georgians will have family/friends who were killed/wounded during the USSR's stay in Afghanistan.

[Zarquon]

Apparently Georgia is sending 1,000 trips even though its not part of NATO.
So, while not screwing up the Middle-East and South-Asia, America wants to rattle the Ruskies as well?
I meant *troops*

[Michael]

I can't help but laugh at the additional NATO support in Afghanistan. 7000 additional troops divided by 28 countries averages 250 troops per country.

Yes, some of the European contingents for the earlier Iraq coalition and now the NATO ops in Afghanistan are pathetically small. :lol:

But then again, only the USA, North Korea, Pakistan, China and India actually maintain very large numbers of regular troops.

I do know that Canada's rotation of maintaining 2000-3000 active duty troops in Afghanistan over the last few years definitely taxes the absolute limit of Canadian military resources and requires call-up support from the Reserves to maintain it. Canada only has about 8-10,000 uniformed regulars in total.

And Canada is bigger (population-wise) than three-quarters of the countries in the EU. Only France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain and Poland are bigger, so I can well imagine the Danish or Croatian Army being fractionally smaller than that!

[Americano]

Yes, some of the European contingents for the earlier Iraq coalition and now the NATO ops in Afghanistan are pathetically small. :lol:

But then again, only the USA, North Korea, Pakistan, China and India actually maintain very large numbers of regular troops.

I do know that Canada's rotation of maintaining 2000-3000 active duty troops in Afghanistan over the last few years definitely taxes the absolute limit of Canadian military resources and requires call-up support from the Reserves to maintain it. Canada only has about 8-10,000 uniformed regulars in total.

And Canada is bigger (population-wise) than three-quarters of the countries in the EU. Only France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain and Poland are bigger, so I can well imagine the Danish or Croatian Army being fractionally smaller than that!

Participating in seemingly endless US wars of intervention has long been an opportunity for countries with smaller military forces to gain experience in combat, civil disorder and maneuvers under difficult conditions.

[Americano]

Did anyone else notice that Obama's speech and troop surge with an escape hatch was identical to Gorbachev's strategy when the former Soviet Union military demanded more troops for Afghanistan?

He approved an increase in troops similar to the size of the US/NATO surge with the condition that if it didn't resolve civil disorder in Afghanistan within a reasonable period of time the soviet Union would withdraw and leave Afghanistan on its own.

[Americano]

For those who haven't discarded interest in the US position on Afghanistan, that country's president has now publicly stated Afghanistan will not be capable of funding 400,000 troops to support the current government, or any government, for the next 15-years as desired in US policy and justification for 'the surge'.

[Michael]

For those who haven't discarded interest in the US position on Afghanistan, that country's president has now publicly stated Afghanistan will not be capable of funding 400,000 troops to support the current government, or any government, for the next 15-years as desired in US policy and justification for 'the surge'.
Honesty from Karzai is a sign of progress! :LOL:

[Americano]

Honesty from Karzai is a sign of progress! :LOL:

If honesty was the issue one couldn't help but wonder where the money would come from in 15-years. He might as well have said the next century. Big pharma will never allow morphine to displace its overwhelmingly profitable synthetics.

[Americano]

Now that the dust has settled with the US decision for a troop surge in Afghanistan more of the pieces are falling into place as to how that decision was structured. This article offers a great deal of insight, generally unavailable in US media, into that process:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL10Df04.html

My respect for US military intelligence (now far larger than its civilian counterparts) and operating procedures just took yet another dump.

[Michael]

From my in-box: more grounds for doubt about Afghanistan

As the United States prepares send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, in what I still regard as a futile effort at "state-building," two interesting items arrived in my in-box. The first is an opinion piece by former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami (now vice-president of the Toledo Center for Peace in Spain), who argues that Afghanistan's neighbors have a greater stake there than the United States, and that they are advancing those interests more effectively by relying primarily on diplomacy rather than military intervention.

In other words, Afghanistan's neighbors have successfully "passed the buck" to the United States -- getting Uncle Sam to do the dirty work and heavy lifting in Afghanistan -- and Washington has been foolish enough to accept that burden. It's too late now, but a smarter strategy would have been for Washington to focus on getting the regional powers to address these problems while it remained in the background, focusing primarily focused tasks (such as the capture or killing of al Qaeda members) for which we were uniquely equipped. My guess is that this approach is where the United States will end up once it realizes that the current "surge" isn’t working, so Ben-Ami's article might even prove to be prophetic.

The second item is a video report from the Guardian in Britain, which shows a group of U.S. Marine trainers working with some pretty hapless Afghan recruits. (One Marine says "I think if they introduced drug testing for the Afghan army, we would lose probably three-quarters to maybe eighty or eight-five percent of the army." It is sort of like watching an Afghan version of Stripes, except that this is in fact serious business and a critical ingredient of current U.S. strategy. The video is consistent with other published reports about the difficulties the U.S. faces in trying to create larger and more effective Afghan security forces, but it is obviously hard to know how representative a single short film might be. So you should view it with some skepticism, the same way you should view any official reports of our progress or anything you read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Guardian itself, for that matter. But if it’s even remotely representative, it tells you why everyone from Secretary Gates on down understands that we are facing a multi-year, and maybe even multi-decade challenge there. Good thing we don't have any other foreign or domestic problems to address right now, and infinite resources to devote to this problem.

Source (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/16/from_my_in_box_more_grounds_for_doubt_about_afghan istan)

The first is to be expected (though it is preventable). I think it is the second that bodes most ill (since there's nothing one can do about it).

[Michael]

Here's another quote illustrating the challenges of training Afghan troops - in the words of an actual US Marine gunner 'embedded' with the Afghan army.

A Marine gunner’s Afghanistan AAR (II): The art of the partner.

[W]e will never succeed unless these guys know we care and get them proficient enough to do the job. First understand that they are not Americans and have a different culture. You will more than likely not be able to keep them from having sex with each other, smoking pot, or taking a little off the top. You can take their drugs when you find it and remind them it is against their religion and diminishes their capabilities in combat and if you are truly partnered with them you can prevent them from stealing from the locals, because you are with them 24/7. Focus on how we can make them a better force. You don't have that far to go with the ANCOP and ANA (they already have an acceptable level of corruptness and the people respect them and are proud of them. Additionally in my experience they are braver than Iraqis and not as lazy). Just teach them basics fundamentals -- patrolling formations and techniques, weapons handling, fire discipline, and TTPs that you commonly train to. You have to have patience and treat them with respect. Include them in the planning process, rehearsals, and allow for patrol orders to be translated.

I honestly am not convinced that the ANP will be an acceptable force in the next few years. I have had numerous locals on patrol tell me that they don't trust them and would rather have the Taliban in charge. Locals here have long memories and it will be a herculean effort to change the attitude towards the ANP. They go far beyond the bounds of acceptable graft and indicators lead me to believe are not always on our side of the fight. They are a localized force, unlike the ANA and ANCOP, and in turn probably have relatives fighting for the Taliban. We had similar problems in Iraq with the IPs. We solved that problem by putting squads in police stations and keeping a constant eye on them -- different type of partnering.

Source (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/16/a_marine_gunner_s_afghanistan_aar_ii_the_art_of_th e_partner)

I think this illustrates the real challenges in Afghanistan. Forget Karzai, forget poppies. Its all about culture and always has been.

[Americano]

Here's another quote illustrating the challenges of training Afghan troops - in the words of an actual US Marine gunner 'embedded' with the Afghan army.



Source (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/16/a_marine_gunner_s_afghanistan_aar_ii_the_art_of_th e_partner)

I think this illustrates the real challenges in Afghanistan. Forget Karzai, forget poppies. Its all about culture and always has been.

Yep. Gen. McCrystal's surge is going to fail in the same manner as that of the former Soviet Union, lack of local support. The elephant in the room is not only Afghanistan being unable to afford the size of its current military/police forces much less doubling their size but a complete disregard of Western values/desires of what that force is being assembled to accomplish.

Yet another disgusting waste of US blood and treasure facilitating material enrichment of an illegitimate government and its endless cronies.

[Zarquon]

Obama is trying to make a virtue of necessity. Since the U.S. can't defeat all terrorism-supporting movements and regimes, he's arguing that it doesn't have to, since most of them are not committing terrorism against us.
In Afghanistan, Obama has sharply narrowed the U.S.'s goals. While still aiming to "defeat al-Qaeda," we're now trying only to "reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government." In other words, we'll tolerate Taliban control over large chunks of the Afghan countryside.
Practically, this exercise in subtraction starts with Iran.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has caused trouble for the U.S. largely out of fear that if the U.S. prevails in those countries, Iran will be next. But the Obama Administration seems to believe that if the U.S. can convince Iran's regime that it's not next, Washington and Tehran can cooperate to achieve their common goal in Afghanistan and Iraq: smashing al-Qaeda.Lurking behind Obama's different view of Iran and Syria is a different view of the terrorist movements they support: Hizballah and Hamas.The Obama Administration has hinted at a different perspective: a recognition that unlike al-Qaeda, Hizballah and Hamas are nationalist movements with deep roots in their particular societies. That means that unlike al-Qaeda, they can't simply be destroyed. Rather, the goal must be to transform them from military organizations into purely political and social ones, as happened with the Irish Republican Army.For eight years, the Bush Administration lumped al-Qaeda and the Taliban together.But now the Obama Administration is making exactly that distinction.A host of Obama officials have insisted that the Taliban is a tribal and national movement and that while it may want to terrorize Afghan secularists and women, it is not particularly interested in terrorizing the American homeland. The implication is that as with Hizballah and Hamas, the U.S.'s only realistic goal is to bring the Taliban into the political process.
Obama has abandoned the goal of making the country Taliban-free.
The decision about troop levels is essentially tactical: it's an effort to win the military leverage necessary to persuade elements of the Taliban that they're better off in government than on the battlefield. "Ultimately," Defense Secretary Robert Gates has declared, there must be "reconciliation with the Taliban."





The problem with Obama's agenda is that although he wants to cut deals with regimes like Iran's and movements like the Taliban, he's not in a particularly strong position to do so. Now, with the U.S. mired in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are less afraid and thus less willing to deal. Similarly, the Taliban have little incentive to break with al-Qaeda so long as they feel they're gaining momentum in the Afghan war. It will be hard for Obama to win at the negotiating table what he can't win on the battlefield.The irony of Obama's downsizing effort: he needs to ratchet up conflicts at first — by sending more troops to Afghanistan and perhaps pushing new sanctions against Iran — to gain the diplomatic muscle to cut deals that don't look like abject American defeats

Source (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1945182,00.html)

What a gem.:rolleyes:
If only American Foreign Policy had been more rational, like 8 fucking years ago, none of this would have been necessary, the goal should have been-Al Qaeda specific with a diplomatic effort to get Iran and other states to help.
Still, it makes a sort of sense, though I doubt it will work given that the US is rather weak right now.

[Michael]

That's a very interesting article. It will take a while for me to mine my way through all those links. I've previously seen this point raised about Obama's goals.

Unfortunately, I think Obama is mis-reading the situation. Iran has no interest in working with USA in the Middle East. Period.

I can't imagine how an American President can go around pretending that Iran would want to help the US achieve US goals in the Middle East. :shrug:

[Americano]

Seems like a dramatic illusion to think Iran would believe anything good about the US Government. Not with the US pumping military aid into Israel as fast as it can print the money while demanding harsh economic sanctions against Iran because Iran won't play by self-serving US rules.

[Americano]

Afghanistan continues to be a joke on the US as its parliament rejected 70% of Karzai's cabinet picks:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/01/201012111935617946.html

Does anyone actually believe US military occupation and nation building efforts in Afghanistan are going to suddenly catapult it ahead to the tune of three societal generations? Our arrogance and adherence to failed policy is beyond incompetence. Unless one has equity in special interests benefiting from our foreign policy.

[Agent Zero]

We (the U.S.) seems to have somewhat of a strategy, and we're poised to start leaving in June or July of next year, I believe. However, if this new strategy (which really isn't that unique) does not work, I don't see how we can stick around and save face here at home. As far as other forces, I don't care if they go or stay; it's whatever works for them and their particular political situation. But if there is any success to be had there, the ingrained corruption of Karzai and his regime must come to an end.

[Americano]

We (the U.S.) seems to have somewhat of a strategy, and we're poised to start leaving in June or July of next year, I believe. However, if this new strategy (which really isn't that unique) does not work, I don't see how we can stick around and save face here at home. As far as other forces, I don't care if they go or stay; it's whatever works for them and their particular political situation. But if there is any success to be had there, the ingrained corruption of Karzai and his regime must come to an end.

I have to fall back on this post, http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15601&postcount=20.

[Michael]

Afghanistan continues to be a joke on the US as its parliament rejected 70% of Karzai's cabinet picks:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/01/201012111935617946.html

Does anyone actually believe US military occupation and nation building efforts in Afghanistan are going to suddenly catapult it ahead to the tune of three societal generations? Our arrogance and adherence to failed policy is beyond incompetence. Unless one has equity in special interests benefiting from our foreign policy.
Yeah, Karzai's regime has turned out to be surprisingly incompetent. Must be hard to find good help these days. ;)


We (the U.S.) seems to have somewhat of a strategy, and we're poised to start leaving in June or July of next year, I believe. However, if this new strategy (which really isn't that unique) does not work, I don't see how we can stick around and save face here at home. As far as other forces, I don't care if they go or stay; it's whatever works for them and their particular political situation. But if there is any success to be had there, the ingrained corruption of Karzai and his regime must come to an end.

I certainly agree about Karzai's regime. But on what grounds can you reasonably expect Karzai's replacement to be an improvement? I don't see any grounds for confidence here at all. Any replacement of Karzai could easily be as bad as Karzai. I think the problems in Afghanistan go much deeper than a corrupt government in Kabul.

Btw, I am curious about your assertion that the US may begin some drawdown from Afghanistan starting in June/July 2010? I'm not aware of this at all.

As for the 'military strategy' in Afghanistan, it appears to me that the US military has several similtaneous strategies going on in Afghanistan and is having a hard time choosing the most appropriate one - this is reflected by the difficulty of choosing one at the political level.

That is to say, I really don't think the present White House can honestly state what the real goal in Afghanistan is (in one sentence). If they say "democracy promotion" then that means one type of long-term strategy. If they say "capture Osama", then that means an entirely different operational strategy. If they say "defeat the Taliban", that's another strategy entirely. If they say "nation-building" that's another strategy again. But the fact is, President Obama always answers 'all of the above' to the question. That's four different strategic approaches where the military needs to focus on just one.

Thus, I think the confusion in the WH on this topic is reflected in the military - the favored strategy depends on the favored 'goal'. US military ends up trying to do all of the above and just ends up with a muddy and confused mess (just like Vietnam I might add) since some of these different strategic approaches are counter-productive to each other if run similtaneously.

That's the problem when one does not have a clearly defined mission (that is politically credible and widely supported). With one clearly defined mission, that defines your primary goal and thus defines the appropriate strategic approach. Without it, one ends up with the policy inertia of low-intensity warfare that never really achieves anything good (and is difficult to end).

War is ugly business, but sometimes necessary. If one must fight, one must have a strategy for victory or it is just madness. That's the key problem in Afghanistan. No one has a viable or plausible strategy for victory there.

I have to fall back on this post, http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15601&postcount=20.
Rory Stewart had a speech recently. I read it but didn't link it so I can't find it right now. The speech was within the last week or so. Surprisingly, Stewart 'endorsed' Obama's plan (the one outlined in Obama's speech announcing the Afghan 'surge').

[Agent Zero]

I certainly agree about Karzai's regime. But on what grounds can you reasonably expect Karzai's replacement to be an improvement? I don't see any grounds for confidence here at all. Any replacement of Karzai could easily be as bad as Karzai. I think the problems in Afghanistan go much deeper than a corrupt government in Kabul.

I would agree that any replacement could be as ineffective, or possibly even worse, so I would assume pressure on the next regime would be required for them to be effective. Whether that pressure (if any) works remains to be seen and is certainly not a given.

Btw, I am curious about your assertion that the US may begin some drawdown from Afghanistan starting in June/July 2010? I'm not aware of this at all.

I was mistaken in that the American presence would be lessened. However, Obama has said that we would begin to hand over control and responsibility over to the Afghan forces starting in July of next year (2011).

Speaking to reporters Thursday in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, Mr. Obama said that starting in July 2011, U.S. forces will begin the "transition" giving Afghans greater responsibility for security. He said the speed of the U.S. withdrawal will be "conditions-based."


http://www.military-world.net/Afghanistan/2863.html

As for the 'military strategy' in Afghanistan, it appears to me that the US military has several similtaneous strategies going on in Afghanistan and is having a hard time choosing the most appropriate one - this is reflected by the difficulty of choosing one at the political level.

That is to say, I really don't think the present White House can honestly state what the real goal in Afghanistan is (in one sentence). If they say "democracy promotion" then that means one type of long-term strategy. If they say "capture Osama", then that means an entirely different operational strategy. If they say "defeat the Taliban", that's another strategy entirely. If they say "nation-building" that's another strategy again. But the fact is, President Obama always answers 'all of the above' to the question. That's four different strategic approaches where the military needs to focus on just one.

Thus, I think the confusion in the WH on this topic is reflected in the military - the favored strategy depends on the favored 'goal'. US military ends up trying to do all of the above and just ends up with a muddy and confused mess (just like Vietnam I might add) since some of these different strategic approaches are counter-productive to each other if run similtaneously.

That's the problem when one does not have a clearly defined mission (that is politically credible and widely supported). With one clearly defined mission, that defines your primary goal and thus defines the appropriate strategic approach. Without it, one ends up with the policy inertia of low-intensity warfare that never really achieves anything good (and is difficult to end).

War is ugly business, but sometimes necessary. If one must fight, one must have a strategy for victory or it is just madness. That's the key problem in Afghanistan. No one has a viable or plausible strategy for victory there.


Rory Stewart had a speech recently. I read it but didn't link it so I can't find it right now. The speech was within the last week or so. Surprisingly, Stewart 'endorsed' Obama's plan (the one outlined in Obama's speech announcing the Afghan 'surge').

As for the rest, we should focus on finding and capturing Osama bin Laden, which is hardly an easy task. Intelligence in this regard is lacking. We should also work on defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, where possible in Afghanistan. This is why we showed up in the first place. If we are unable to complete these tasks by ourselves, at some point Afghanistan has to take responsibility for what goes on within its own borders. We can't be there forever. And so the strategy will change if this initial strategy is ineffective. I'd rather us not be there at all, but this is not a clear-cut situation, and can't receive a clear-cut solution, as things can change rather quickly.

[Zarquon]

As for the rest, we should focus on finding and capturing Osama bin Laden, which is hardly an easy task. Intelligence in this regard is lacking. We should also work on defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, where possible in Afghanistan. This is why we showed up in the first place. If we are unable to complete these tasks by ourselves, at some point Afghanistan has to take responsibility for what goes on within its own borders. We can't be there forever. And so the strategy will change if this initial strategy is ineffective. I'd rather us not be there at all, but this is not a clear-cut situation, and can't receive a clear-cut solution, as things can change rather quickly.
Al-Qaida has decentralized considerably over the years and now operates from the internet rather than any one place. A significant number of their operatives are now involved in the civil war/insurrection in Yemen, and in another civil war with criminals/pirates in Somalia via their proxy Al Shabab.
The number of Al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan is barely more or less than 100, and doesn't justify the surge. If US is focused on removing the Afghan Taliban, than it must understand that it is:
a.)An indigenous movement that cannot just be obliterated, any more than the teabaggers can be.
b.) Is regarded by Pakistan's Military-Intelligence establishment as a strategic asset- who also view Afghanistan as their rightful sphere of influence- and will continue to support them clandestinely, which undermines whatever the US does.
As for bringing stability to that country and withdrawing from it, the US will have to make the dysfunctional and vastly corrupt Afghan Govt deliver on security, infrastructure, and jobs, while also providing a robust justice system that is quick and fair enough to provide a credible alternative to the Taliban and the opium trade; while not tinkering too much with the tribal structure of the society or the influence of the warlords.
Thus, unless the Afghanis have adequate security and opportunity, and Afghan forces are honest and capable of securing most of the territory, the US will leave behind a festering mess right next to Pakistan, which won't be good for anyone.

[Michael]

Can Anyone Pacify the World's Number One Narco-State?

n ways that have escaped most observers, the Obama administration is now trapped in an endless cycle of drugs and death in Afghanistan from which there is neither an easy end nor an obvious exit.

After a year of cautious debate and costly deployments, President Obama finally launched his new Afghan war strategy at 2:40 am on February 13, 2010, in a remote market town called Marja in southern Afghanistan's Helmand Province. As a wave of helicopters descended on Marja's outskirts spitting up clouds of dust, hundreds of U.S. Marines dashed through fields sprouting opium poppies toward the town's mud-walled compounds.

After a week of fighting, U.S. war commander General Stanley A. McChrystal choppered into town with Afghanistan's vice-president and Helmand's provincial governor. Their mission: a media roll-out for the general's new-look counterinsurgency strategy based on bringing government to remote villages just like Marja.

At a carefully staged meet-and-greet with some 200 villagers, however, the vice-president and provincial governor faced some unexpected, unscripted anger. "If they come with tractors," one Afghani widow announced to a chorus of supportive shouts from her fellow farmers, "they will have to roll over me and kill me before they can kill my poppy."
Source (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/narco-state-opium-afghanistan)

And that is why the US involvement in Afghanistan can never be anything but a dead-end quagmire. US policy in Afghanistan is directly opposed by a significant majority of the Afgani population - where US forces represent a greater threat to their wellbeing than the Taliban do.

You can't 'win' any war with that kind of metric working against you.

[Donkey]

And looks like the other heavy lifters (Canada) are on their way out...

[Americano]

Excellent article.

This one (Afghanistan) rivals the stupidity of trying to keep godless communism out of Vietnam.

[Michael]

And looks like the other heavy lifters (Canada) are on their way out...
Hillary mentioned this topic while she was here.

However, there is no way in hell that anyone can open up the Afghan issue here right now without causing a can of worms. Canada has its official decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011 and there's no fucking way anyone can change that. To even address the question would be electoral suicide for whoever talks about it.

Fact is, the issue is totally off the table up here - unless you are talking about how the Harper Government conspired to hide its complicity with Afghani or US torture regimes. That issue is very hot.

As such, the Conservatives who normally support US foreign wars are gun-shy while the Liberals are in disarray. The Liberals are usually the only ones that can carry out that kind of policy change since no one trusts the way the Conservatives just bow to Washington on every issue, all the time.

If the Conservatives up here fail to follow US policy orders, it is not for want of trying. They just don't have the political capital or support to deliver on that policy.

Indeed, to even open the question in Parliament would likely bring down Harper's government and that's not something he's going to risk.

[Donkey]

Hey, good for Canada. I just wish there was that sort of resolve here.

[Michael]

Hey, good for Canada. I just wish there was that sort of resolve here.

Like the USA, Canada has its own political culture that is very hard to change. Quebec for example, is quite leftwing and extremely anti-war and they always have been (Quebec aggressively opposed Canada's participation in WW1 and WW2). At the other extreme, Alberta is practically 'Texas-North' in their politics.

The key difference between US and Canadian politics is that Ontario is the main swing state up here and it is fairly liberal/progressive - and it is the most populous province (40% of the national population). That means that parties MUST pander to Ontario to succeed or die trying.

Indeed, USA would be much more like Canada politically if NY or California was the key swing state instead of Florida and Ohio. :rofl:

[MeMyselfAndI]

My uncle fought in Afghan, with Soviet Paratroopers, in the 80s. It is a war that cannot be won, unless you are willing to spend a lot of time and sacrifice many thousnads of soldiers there.

[Americano]

My uncle fought in Afghan, with Soviet Paratroopers, in the 80s. It is a war that cannot be won, unless you are willing to spend a lot of time and sacrifice many thousnads of soldiers there.

The US has been defying that reasonable logic since Vietnam. Our military industrial complex demands ongoing adherence to failed policy.

[Non Sequitur]

My uncle fought in Afghan, with Soviet Paratroopers, in the 80s. It is a war that cannot be won, unless you are willing to spend a lot of time and sacrifice many thousnads of soldiers there.

The US has been defying that reasonable logic since Vietnam. Our military industrial complex demands ongoing adherence to failed policy.

What's our definition of victory though? It seems "victory" could mean anything from Al-Qaeda not coming back to Afghanistan to Afghanistan becomes a becon of hope, democracy, and Western Civilization. We would have to understand what "victory" is for today's policy makers before I declare the war a lost cause :shrug:

[MeMyselfAndI]

What's our definition of victory though? It seems "victory" could mean anything from Al-Qaeda not coming back to Afghanistan to Afghanistan becomes a becon of hope, democracy, and Western Civilization. We would have to understand what "victory" is for today's policy makers before I declare the war a lost cause :shrug:

I do not know why NATO is so determined to keep on staying in Afghanistan... I mean, Russia and Chechnya/North Caucasus, we do not have a choice: our people are there, it is a part of our country, we have to defend it, if we like it or not.

But, Kandagar is far away from Europe or America.

[Americano]

What's our definition of victory though? It seems "victory" could mean anything from Al-Qaeda not coming back to Afghanistan to Afghanistan becomes a becon of hope, democracy, and Western Civilization. We would have to understand what "victory" is for today's policy makers before I declare the war a lost cause :shrug:

In Vietnam we certainly didn't stem the domino effect of godless communism.

Iraq was a fiasco that should make any American ashamed of the US.

Afghanistan has become yet another sinkhole for US resources with a thoroughly corrupt system of government and general hatred of American military occupation.

Victory? Decades of poor leadership has drained the US of resources, added staggering debt service and made it disrespected by much of the world. How anyone could claim victory under such circumstances would be an insult.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Agree with Americano. Just like for USSR, for NATO, war in Afghan is nothing but a pointless waste of resources.

[Michael]

What's our definition of victory though? It seems "victory" could mean anything from Al-Qaeda not coming back to Afghanistan to Afghanistan becomes a becon of hope, democracy, and Western Civilization. We would have to understand what "victory" is for today's policy makers before I declare the war a lost cause :shrug:

If one cannot define exactly what one is seeking to achieve, then one has little hope to achieve it except by chance alone.

[The Drunk Guy]

The problem is that, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we went under the guise of killing terrorists. Unfortunately, the terrorists weren't on hand. (Surprise!) So now we're locked in never-ending wars with freedom-fighters that despise the regimes we have placed in power.

We are fighting to capture these nations in our oligarchical 'democracy' and they're not laying down and taking it like good little 'patriots'. The US and NATO has no idea how to defeat real patriots. This is the reason we failed in Vietnam and the reason we will fail in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other nation we seek to overtake.

[Americano]

The problem is that, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we went under the guise of killing terrorists. Unfortunately, the terrorists weren't on hand. (Surprise!) So now we're locked in never-ending wars with freedom-fighters that despise the regimes we have placed in power.

We are fighting to capture these nations in our oligarchical 'democracy' and they're not laying down and taking it like good little 'patriots'. The US and NATO has no idea how to defeat real patriots. This is the reason we failed in Vietnam and the reason we will fail in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other nation we seek to overtake.

How quickly we forget. The Vietnam rationalization was to prevent the domino effect of communism in SE Asia. Invading Iraq to protect the US from non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan because it at one time harbored Bin Laden. Once the US military ruins a country's infrastructure and its armies of federally funded contractors arrive, all who don't kiss the US ring are deemed terrorists.

[Americano]

Top general: It's a draw in Afghanistan (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJB0jQFrUBcgd3cFfmGw7XUKvagQD9FM7RD00)

"Gen. Stanley McChrystal says the momentum of the resurgent Taliban militants has been stopped. But for now, the general says, nobody is winning.
In an interview Thursday on PBS' "NewsHour," McChrystal says he sees significant progress for the allies fighting the Taliban this year.
McChrystal says the insurgency remains serious, with a reach that spans the country and a large number of fighters."


$7-8 billion a month for the military with incalculable private contractor costs and the top US general in charge says it's a draw. Doesn't that normally mean the game is over? Or is this just a new pitch for yet more money to be stuffed down the rat hole of Afghanistan?

[Michael]

Top general: It's a draw in Afghanistan (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJB0jQFrUBcgd3cFfmGw7XUKvagQD9FM7RD00)

"Gen. Stanley McChrystal says the momentum of the resurgent Taliban militants has been stopped. But for now, the general says, nobody is winning.
In an interview Thursday on PBS' "NewsHour," McChrystal says he sees significant progress for the allies fighting the Taliban this year.
McChrystal says the insurgency remains serious, with a reach that spans the country and a large number of fighters."


$7-8 billion a month for the military with incalculable private contractor costs and the top US general in charge says it's a draw. Doesn't that normally mean the game is over? Or is this just a new pitch for yet more money to be stuffed down the rat hole of Afghanistan?

Translated into "washingtonese", I'd say that's a clear-cut attempt to 'play down expectations'.

And yes, that's a partial admission that present "COIN" strategy(TM) isn't working, but they are going to stay dedicated to their task, hoping things will change next year. :shrug:

[Americano]

Translated into "washingtonese", I'd say that's a clear-cut attempt to 'play down expectations'.

And yes, that's a partial admission that present "COIN" strategy(TM) isn't working, but they are going to stay dedicated to their task, hoping things will change next year. :shrug:

Agreed. Military and reconstruction funding is sailing through congress with scarcely a whimper.

[Michael]

Apparently, they've now discovered that there is close to $1 trillion worth of natural resources buried underneath Afghanistan (lithium is apparently the mineral in the largest quantity and value).

As if Afghanistan didn't already have enough problems...

[Americano]

Apparently, they've now discovered that there is close to $1 trillion worth of natural resources buried underneath Afghanistan (lithium is apparently the mineral in the largest quantity and value).

As if Afghanistan didn't already have enough problems...

At $120 billion/yr US costs for Afghanistan (excluding most reconstruction efforts) that won't do much to help US taxpayers. US DoD spending for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars just topped $1 trillion.

Sounds like yet another attempted PR boost for the Afghanistan failure.

[Michael]

At $120 billion/yr US costs for Afghanistan (excluding most reconstruction efforts) that won't do much to help US taxpayers. US DoD spending for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars just topped $1 trillion.

Sounds like yet another attempted PR boost for the Afghanistan failure.
No doubt the neocons will claim that this means that the occupation of Afghanistan is going to pay for itself. :lol:

Just like the oil in Iraq was going to pay for that adventure! :rolleyes:

[Michael]

Here's a good post on this topic from Matthew Yglesias' blog:

So Afghanistan is going to be “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”, but a more prosaic way of putting the point might be that Afghanistan is, if it’s lucky, poisoned to become the next Bolivia. Indeed, when last we saw geopolitical lithium hype this was the concern and thanks to lithium’s use in batteries for the hypothetical fleet of electric cars that will allegedly save the planet, Bolivia’s been called “the Saudi Arabia of the green world”. But it’s also an impoverished backwater.
The original passage includes a half dozen hotlinks.
Source (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/how-lithium-didnt-save-the-bolivian-economy/)

I think Yglesias hits the nail here. This isn't really significant news here. Indeed, some others have observed that the information originates in 2007 and has been freely available ever since.

This of course raises the question of, who pushed this story onto the 'front page' of the US media?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this piece of information pans out. Clearly, someone is pushing this information right now. The question is who and why?

Without a doubt, the goal is political, given the method of distribution. That much is obvious. This 'lithium in Afghanistan' story has wall-to-wall blog coverage out there since early this morning.

[Americano]

The comment also points out that Afghanistan is an impoverished country. A market value of $1 trillion lithium recovered over a 10-year period is only $100 billion annually. What the Afghanistan government might derive from that in tax revenue and economic flow-through would be somewhat significant until demand or the resource is exhausted.

Ten years of increased GDP from finite natural resources and then the consequences of what is typical short-term planning brings is not going to change Afghanistan. There won't be that many mining jobs and in what is currently the 2nd most corrupt country in the world involved in a civil war, few benefits from that temporary prosperity will trickle down to the general public.

Another grasp at attempting to justify the war in Afghanistan to enable US military industrial complex full feed troughs of money the US doesn't have.

[Michael]

All points indicate that the US DoD is the one pushing this story.

[Michael]

A Plan B for Afghanistan

As we all know by now, President Obama and General Petraeus hope to win the war in Afghanistan through a strategy of escalated counterinsurgency warfare. Yesterday, I suggested that they ought to be thinking about a Plan B in case (or when) their approach fails. With splendid timing, on Wednesday the New America Foundation will provide that Plan B, in a report entitled "A New Way Forward: Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan." (You can watch a press conference on the report at 12 noon on Wednesday here, or read study director Steve Clemons' summary here.)

To whet your appetite, here are the Study Group's five main recommendations:

* Emphasize power-sharing and political inclusion. The U.S. should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.

* Downsize and eventually end military operations in southern Afghanistan, and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The U.S. should draw down its military presence, which radicalizes many Pashtuns and is an important aid to Taliban recruitment.

* Focus security efforts on al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets, and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known al Qaeda cells in the region and be ready to go after them should they attempt to relocate elsewhere or build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.

* Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking, and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally-led effort to develop Afghanistan's economy.

* Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or being a permanently failed state that exports instability to others.

Article: Foreign Policy (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/08/a_plan_b_for_afghanistan)

The article goes on to list 11 "myths" that surround the debate. Indeed, I consider the puncturing of these myths to be even more important than trying to come up with a new Plan B for Afghanistan.

Either way, that's a decent looking "Plan B" - and given reality on the ground in Afghanistan, it is plainly obvious to all (except those in Washington of course) that the Obama-Petreus plan is a categorical failure in Afghanistan and that a 'plan B' will be needed soon enough (sooner is better than later).

To whit, successful COIN strategy is explicitly based upon supporting an existing and legitimate government. Afghanistan doesn't have one of those and that simple fact is a big fat fly in the COIN soup of US policy.

[Michael]

I was just reading up on something else and I stumbled upon a reference to the "Durrani Empire in Afghanistan". I was curious, so I looked that up on Wiki because I'd never heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire

Anyway, the wiki entry was very interesting reading as background for Afghanistan. This Ahmad Shah Durrani fellow seems quite impressive fellow. His empire, which included modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, half of Iran as well as the Punjab region, seems to have lived only as long as he did though. :shrug:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg/798px-Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg
The caption for this photo reads: The young 25-year-old Ahmad Shah Abdali is being crowned by a local religious figure, Sabir Shah, in October 1747. The coronation ceremony took place west of Kandahar.

[Michael]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/TKV5hcF92wI/AAAAAAAAHxI/3vkye00_mZc/s320/fs_charles_de_gaulle_r91.jpg
FS Charles de Gaulle

Charles de Gaulle Deploying to Afghanstian

According to this source (in French), the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is deploying for 4 months to the Indian Ocean to support operations in Afghanistan. "Agapanthus 10," as the mission is called, was presented at a press briefing of the Ministry of Defense by Admiral Jean-Louis Kerignard.

The carrier battlegroup will consist of the aircraft carrier FS Charles de Gaulle (R91), FS Forbin (D620), FS Tourville (D610), the naval auxiliary vessel FS Meuse (A 607), and the submarine FS Amethyst (S605). The air group on board the aircraft carrier will have 12 upgraded Super Etendard, 10 Rafale, 2 Hawkeyes, and helicopters. The operation is expected to begin in mid October and last until February.

In any context, the contribution of an aircraft carrier in support of operations over Afghanistan is a significant coalition contribution by France. This will be the 5th deployment by the FS Charles de Gaulle (R91) in support of military operations in Afghanistan (the previous four were in 2001/2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007).

Source (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/10/charles-de-gaulle-deploying-to.html)

Indeed, the deployment of an aircraft carrier group is a significant contribution from France.

That being said, its boots on the ground (and a new plan!) are what is needed in Afghanistan, not more air-power. :rolleyes:

That being said, I suspect this 'contribution' is more political than military.

[Greendruid]

FS Charles de Gaulle



Source (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/10/charles-de-gaulle-deploying-to.html)

Indeed, the deployment of an aircraft carrier group is a significant contribution from France.

That being said, its boots on the ground (and a new plan!) are what is needed in Afghanistan, not more air-power. :rolleyes:

That being said, I suspect this 'contribution' is more political than military.

Indeed, the world doth tremble not at the approach of the French navy! :rofl:

[Michael]

Pakistan blocks NATO convoys, but Taliban get free passage

TORKHAM, Afghanistan — For more than a week since a confused U.S. helicopter strike killed two Pakistan paramilitary soldiers, Pakistan has blocked scores of Western supply convoys on the vital route that supports the U.S-led military campaign in Afghanistan.

Yet every day, say taxi drivers, security officials and border shop owners, Taliban insurgents cross from Pakistan into Afghanistan with nary a second glance from border officials.

"Every day, 40,000 to 70,000 people pass through the border, we can't handle it," said Gen. Mohammed Zaman Mamozai, the commander of the Afghan Border Police stationed at Torkham gate. "For us it's very difficult, and it's not possible to ask every single person where they are going and if they have a passport."

Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/07/101761/pakistan-blocks-nato-convoys-but.html)

Here's the real punch line...

For nearly a decade, the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to cut off the remote, high altitude mountain trails Taliban forces use to smuggle weapons and fighters into Afghanistan.

Now, the U.S. military is turning its attention to the border crossing.

"More and more we've realized that they are not coming through the passes, they're just coming through the . . . gate," said one U.S. government official in Afghanistan who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could candidly discuss the unfolding plan to focus on the border crossing.

So the US military, in ten fucking years, hadn't noticed that the Taliban was coming and going as they pleased across the Afghan-Pakistani border crossing? :erm:

That's pathetic and scary at the same time.

[Americano]

Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/07/101761/pakistan-blocks-nato-convoys-but.html)

Here's the real punch line...



So the US military, in ten fucking years, hadn't noticed that the Taliban was coming and going as they pleased across the Afghan-Pakistani border crossing? :erm:

That's pathetic and scary at the same time.

The US military hasn't been known for expertise in guerrilla warfare since it lost the Vietnam fiasco. Low ground casualties for political purposes and infrastructure destruction (to further enrich special interests through reconstruction at US expense) seems to be their strategy. Even the drones are under CIA, not military, control.

$100 bullion a year we know of down the drain and probably another $50 billion a year from other budgets we'll never know about. For nothing. In a declining empire, that's pathetic and scary.

[Michael]

The US military hasn't been known for expertise in guerrilla warfare since it lost the Vietnam fiasco. Low ground casualties for political purposes and infrastructure destruction (to further enrich special interests through reconstruction at US expense) seems to be their strategy. Even the drones are under CIA, not military, control.

$100 bullion a year we know of down the drain and probably another $50 billion a year from other budgets we'll never know about. For nothing. In a declining empire, that's pathetic and scary.

Yes, the US military doesn't seem to be very good with this type of ground campaign any more. Nowadays, the US military is second to none in playing 'blitzkrieg' but guerrilla war seems to defy US military techniques. Quite unlike pre-WW2 US history when the US Marines were pretty damn good at the counter-insurgency game (with lots of practice in Central America and the Phillipines).

[Americano]

Yes, the US military doesn't seem to be very good with this type of ground campaign any more. Nowadays, the US military is second to none in playing 'blitzkrieg' but guerrilla war seems to defy US military techniques. Quite unlike pre-WW2 US history when the US Marines were pretty damn good at the counter-insurgency game (with lots of practice in Central America and the Phillipines).

Low cost strategy that worked. The US MIC can't generate mind-boggling budget increases with reality.

[Michael]

When it comes to cynicism and world politics, I thought I'd seen it all and that the situation in Afghanistan, couldn't get much worse than it is now.

Then comes this news item...

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership.

NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge.

The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said.

The episode underscores the uncertain and even bizarre nature of the atmosphere in which Afghan and American leaders search for ways to bring the nine-year-old American-led war to an end. The leaders of the Taliban are believed to be hiding in Pakistan, possibly with the assistance of the Pakistani government, which receives billions of dollars in American aid.

...

The Western diplomat said the Afghan man was initially given a sizable sum of money to take part in the talks — and to help persuade him to return.


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/asia/23kabul.html?_r=2&hp)

This is so pathetic is actually funny. :lol:

The West is so desperate for someone to take their money and say "peace" that they can be fooled so easily. This doesn't speak well of the whole NATO thing in Afghanistan. It is becoming a joke. :erm:

[Michael]

Apparently General Petreaus and U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry (and a few other officials) met with Afghan President Karzai back in October...

Sitting at the head of a glass-topped, U-shaped table in his conference room, Karzai refused to budge, according to two people with direct knowledge of the late October meeting. He insisted that Afghan police and soldiers could protect the reconstruction workers, and he dismissed pleas for a delay.

As he spoke, he grew agitated, then enraged. He told them that he now has three "main enemies" - the Taliban, the United States and the international community.

"If I had to choose sides today, I'd choose the Taliban," he fumed.

After a few more parting shots, he got up and walked out of the wood-paneled room.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/12/AR2010121203747.html)

[Americano]

US politicians and media have achieved exactly what the US MIC desired in that the Afghanistan War is now an accepted, ongoing fixture in American mentality. The US supports what is one of the most corrupt, ongoing puppet governments in the world while expanding the US military and providing a seemingly bottomless fund for special interests.

[Americano]

US military commanders are apparently frothing at the mouth in anticipation of sending US ground forces into Pakistan while Pakistan's ambassador restates Pakistani policy of no foreign troops in Pakistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/21/pakistan.afghanistan.raids/

NATO forces in Afghanistan control ~15% of Afghanistan real estate. Is the US so delusional as to believe attacking Taliban in semi-autonomous Pakistan regions will change Karzai's thoroughly corrupt government or limit Taliban resistance in Afghanistan? This is reminiscent of the US bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War, equally ill fated and imbecilic.

[Michael]

US military commanders are apparently frothing at the mouth in anticipation of sending US ground forces into Pakistan while Pakistan's ambassador restates Pakistani policy of no foreign troops in Pakistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/21/pakistan.afghanistan.raids/

NATO forces in Afghanistan control ~15% of Afghanistan real estate. Is the US so delusional as to believe attacking Taliban in semi-autonomous Pakistan regions will change Karzai's thoroughly corrupt government or limit Taliban resistance in Afghanistan? This is reminiscent of the US bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War, equally ill fated and imbecilic.

Indeed. If you aren't winning the war, it doesn't seem wise to seek to expand the theater of operations and/or to escalate the terms engagement. Sun Tzu would be opposed to this strategy on so many grounds that I can't be bothered to list them all.

I should like the reading of Sun Tzu to be mandatory at the Pentagon. Straight text, no commentaries. If there are any copies of Clauswitz lying around, burn them! Clauswitz is totally dated to the 19th century. Sun Tzu is timeless.

[Americano]

Congress just refunded the military for the Afghanistan occupation, $160 billion with no strings attached, so the MIC can pretty much do what it wants with the money. NATO's mandate is limited to Afghanistan meaning any expansion such as going into Pakistan will be on the US dollar with US personnel.

[nikole.957]

Ah, the long desired pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. That seems to still be on hold due to nationalist resistance to western colonization efforts in both countries. I'm sure Afghans understand adopting western standards for woman's rights will allow them independence without air and artillery strikes on wedding parties or villages with al Qaeda or Taliban supporters supposedly present.
I agree that no nation has the right to send troops into another nation to decide policy. However, its already happened, so now we have a mess to clean up. I feel that they should do the same as in Iraq and train an army to defend itself and pull back from active involvement. And the sooner that pipeline's done, the sooner we can bring our boys home.

[Americano]

I agree that no nation has the right to send troops into another nation to decide policy. However, its already happened, so now we have a mess to clean up. I feel that they should do the same as in Iraq and train an army to defend itself and pull back from active involvement. And the sooner that pipeline's done, the sooner we can bring our boys home.

I suggest you review Afghanistan's economic prospects and define how an army to defend itself from internal resistance to a western style puppet government in the world's second most corrupt country is possible. Karzai's government is thoroughly corrupt while recruitment and training of his army and national police force at US expense is already over two years behind schedule.

I could care less about 'our boys'. It is a volunteer military and if they're stupid enough to participate in the destruction and occupation of yet another country that rejects US colonialism, so be it. I'm against the stupidity of paying for the US military-industrial complex to destroy and attempt rebuilding yet another third world country. We haven't won a war since ww2.

[Greendruid]

You forgot to mention the massive scale of inter-ethnic politics that would boggle the minds of any North American who cannot possibly be familiar with what the weight of 700 years of back and forth relations feels like to be carrying on your shoulders. It's a bloody mess and it is no one's job to impose solutions.

[Michael]

You forgot to mention the massive scale of inter-ethnic politics that would boggle the minds of any North American who cannot possibly be familiar with what the weight of 700 years of back and forth relations feels like to be carrying on your shoulders. It's a bloody mess and it is no one's job to impose solutions.

Solutions could be imposed, but we don't do that kind of thing any more. That requires elimination of large parts of the population. That's politically unacceptable in the West.

Ergo, there is no viable solution available for Afghanistan.

[Americano]

Solutions could be imposed, but we don't do that kind of thing any more. That requires elimination of large parts of the population. That's politically unacceptable in the West.

Ergo, there is no viable solution available for Afghanistan.

I think it has more to do with politically unacceptable western casualties created by attempted domination of unconventional (guerrilla) forces. US political prestige (what's left of it) doesn't want a repeat of the Vietnam protests when even all the US military might of unlimited B52 carpet bombing, Agent Orange poisoning and 500,000 US troops in S. Vietnam couldn't suppress the Vietcong.

[Michael]

It would appear that Matt Yglesias' invocation of the 'Green Lantern Theory' as being the principal driving belief of America's ruling elites is alive and well. :erm:

Like any war, this one is ultimately about willpower, and America has an advantage in Petraeus, one of the strongest-willed people you could hope to meet.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122802499.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

That's David Ignatius, flagship columnist at the Washington Post.

The key point about the 'Green Lantern' theory is that the only thing America needs to achieve victory in any given military operation is sufficient 'willpower'.

Liberal pundit and blogger Matthew Yglesias has ascribed to conservative advocates of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics." Yglesias characterized adherents to this "theory" as people who believe "American military might" is like a Green Lantern's power ring, "that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower."[14] "The Green Lantern Theory" has since become a meme among liberal bloggers.

[Americano]

Willpower requires high US casualty rates and that's something US politicians studiously avoid.

[Michael]

Willpower requires high US casualty rates and that's something US politicians studiously avoid.

Actually, in the Washington/GreenLantern theory, that's not true at all.

They tend to believe that all it takes is willpower of the leadership. As long as America is devout in its will to succeed, they believe all American military ventures will be 100% successful.

Failure of the theory (as in Vietnam) doesn't seem to dent them as they just blame the failure on a lack of willpower (thus feeding the cycle).

[Americano]

Actually, in the Washington/GreenLantern theory, that's not true at all.

They tend to believe that all it takes is willpower of the leadership. As long as America is devout in its will to succeed, they believe all American military ventures will be 100% successful.

Failure of the theory (as in Vietnam) doesn't seem to dent them as they just blame the failure on a lack of willpower (thus feeding the cycle).

Defining Petraeus's military role in Iraq as a success gave me a really good laugh.

[Michael]

Defining Petraeus's military role in Iraq as a success gave me a really good laugh.

That's just typical sloppy thinking the media elites are famous for.

Petraeus was a huge success with the US domestic political need for the war in Iraq (selling the "surge" to get GW Bush re-elected). This gets conveniently and wrongly translated into Petreaus having military success in Iraq - it is as if the two concepts are one and the same. :shrug:

Indeed, that's probably the US media's biggest and most consistent failure - the belief that voting for war and winning a war are one and the same.

And just to put Petraeus' success in Iraq into perspective - he's credited with following the same policy the CIA followed in the mid-1980's in Afghanistan. The same policy that created Osama Bin Laden that is. :erm:

I don't care what anyone believes, "the enemy of my enemy" is not my friend and never will be. Washington really needs to learn this lesson some day.

[Americano]

That's just typical sloppy thinking the media elites are famous for.

Petraeus was a huge success with the US domestic political need for the war in Iraq (selling the "surge" to get GW Bush re-elected). This gets conveniently and wrongly translated into Petreaus having military success in Iraq - it is as if the two concepts are one and the same. :shrug:

Indeed, that's probably the US media's biggest and most consistent failure - the belief that voting for war and winning a war are one and the same.

Favorable propaganda has long been a necessary component of any authoritarian, military aggressive nation. Not only does it support political decisions, it glorifies the military and sells product. Over the past few months I've been reading revisionist history of the Bush43 administration that truly belongs in comic books.

[Michael]

Favorable propaganda has long been a necessary component of any authoritarian, military aggressive nation. Not only does it support political decisions, it glorifies the military and sells product. Over the past few months I've been reading revisionist history of the Bush43 administration that truly belongs in comic books.

:rofl: I've seen ACTUAL history of the Bush Administration antics that also belongs in comic books!

[Michael]

Just in case one didn't have enough reasons to think that the Afghan war was a total waste of time, money, lives and resources...

U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says

Roads, canals and schools built in Afghanistan as part of a special U.S. military program are crumbling under Afghan stewardship, despite steps imposed over the past year to ensure that reconstruction money is not being wasted, according to government reports and interviews with military and civilian personnel.

U.S. troops in Afghanistan have spent $2 billion over six years on 16,000 humanitarian projects through the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which gives a battalion-level commander the power to treat aid dollars as ammunition.

A report slated for release this month reveals that CERP projects can quickly slide into neglect after being transferred to Afghan control. The Afghans had problems maintaining about half of the 69 projects reviewed in eastern Laghman province, according to an audit by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

The spending in Afghanistan is part of the $5 billion provided to U.S. military commanders for projects in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004. The new report is the latest to identify shortcomings and missteps in the program, whose ventures have included the Jadriyah Lake park in Iraq, planned as a water park but now barren two years after a U.S. military inauguration ceremony.


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/03/AR2011010302175.html)

The Jadriyah Lake park in Baghdad is priceless. Basically they tried to build a western style 'waterpark' in Baghdad. Problem is, the Afghans water pumping station died out so there's been no water in the water park since it was built. :rolleyes:

But then again, why the US taxpayer is funding waterparks in war-zones is beyond me. :shrug:

[Americano]

Putting it in perspective:

$5 billion to be spent at the discretion of military battalion commanders. A battalion is 300-1000 troops commanded by a Lt. Colonel, 98,000 US troops in Afghanistan equaling ~98 battalions divided into $5 billion equals an average of $51 million being spent by each battalion commander. On Afghanistan civilian projects such as water parks.

While US infrastructure continues to deteriorate with municipalities and states in fiscal crisis.

[Michael]

Putting it in perspective:

$5 billion to be spent at the discretion of military battalion commanders. A battalion is 300-1000 troops commanded by a Lt. Colonel, 98,000 US troops in Afghanistan equaling ~98 battalions divided into $5 billion equals an average of $51 million being spent by each battalion commander. On Afghanistan civilian projects such as water parks.

While US infrastructure continues to deteriorate with municipalities and states in fiscal crisis.

Once you put it that way, the absurdity of it all becomes plain. I respectfully submit that the average Lt. Colonel in the US Army isn't trained for, and doesn't have the expertise to be tasked with, adjudicating optimal usage of aid money.

Indeed, one could probably go one step further and suggest that the training and education of the average Lt. Colonel in the US Army probably make the average Lt. Colonel in the US Army one of the worst possible choices for adjudicating aid decisions in a 3rd world country.

No one should be surprised at the 'sub-optimal' results achieved here.

[Americano]

Once you put it that way, the absurdity of it all becomes plain. I respectfully submit that the average Lt. Colonel in the US Army isn't trained for, and doesn't have the expertise to be tasked with, adjudicating optimal usage of aid money.

Indeed, one could probably go one step further and suggest that the training and education of the average Lt. Colonel in the US Army probably make the average Lt. Colonel in the US Army one of the worst possible choices for adjudicating aid decisions in a 3rd world country.

No one should be surprised at the 'sub-optimal' results achieved here.

It's still the same old game. Those funds are being utilized by civilian special interests blessed by the US government who have no goal other than turning very handsome profits at taxpayer expense. Ignorant Americans lap it up because that's considered part of the cost of them being 'protected' from terrorism while they pursue constantly expanding forms of mindless entertainment.

[Michael]

It's still the same old game. Those funds are being utilized by civilian special interests blessed by the US government who have no goal other than turning very handsome profits at taxpayer expense. Ignorant Americans lap it up because that's considered part of the cost of them being 'protected' from terrorism while they pursue constantly expanding forms of mindless entertainment.

Agreed. US 'reconstruction funding' in Afghanistan is probably driven by the desire for US companies to profit at taxpayer expense than any viable COIN policy or benefit for Afghanistan.

We talk about the corruption in Afghanistan being a big problem (and it is) but corruption in Washington is what seems to be driving the massive increase in corruption in Afghanistan. Americans lead by example and the Afghanis are only following the lead of their colonial master. :shrug:

Suffice it to say that Afghanistan didn't top the international corruption indexes until the American military arrived with bags full of US taxpayer's money to spread around.

[Americano]

Afghanistan and Opium (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011306738.html?tid=wp_featuredstories)

An interesting article on opium economics in Afghanistan. How does one motivate a farmer to grow wheat when opium cultivation brings seven times the price of wheat? Keep in mind that the US keeps world prices of wheat and other commodity grains artificially low through massive government subsides.

[Michael]

Here's an excellent article about Afghanistan and the US military.

The Urge to Surge
Washington’s 30-Year High
By Tom Engelhardt

If, as 2011 begins, you want to peer into the future, enter my time machine, strap yourself in, and head for the past, that laboratory for all developments of our moment and beyond.

Just as 2010 ended, the American military’s urge to surge resurfaced in a significant way. It seems that “leaders” in the Obama administration and “senior American military commanders” in Afghanistan were acting as a veritable WikiLeaks machine. They slipped information to New York Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins about secret planning to increase pressure in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, possibly on the tinderbox province of Baluchistan, and undoubtedly on the Pakistani government and military via cross-border raids by U.S. Special Operations forces in the new year.

In the front-page story those two reporters produced, you could practically slice with a dull knife American military frustration over a war going terribly wrong, over an enemy (shades of Vietnam!) with “sanctuaries” for rest, recuperation, and rearming just over an ill-marked, half-existent border. You could practically taste the chagrin of the military that their war against... well you name it: terrorists, guerrillas, former Islamic fundamentalist allies, Afghan and Pakistani nationalists, and god knows who else... wasn’t proceeding exactly swimmingly. You could practically reach out and be seared by their anger at the Pakistanis for continuing to take American bucks by the billions while playing their own game, rather than an American one, in the region.

Source (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175336/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_war_is_a_drug/)

Warming up to the theme, the best stuff comes at the end...

The Soviet Path

To one degree or another, we have been on the Soviet path for years and yet, ever more desperately, we continue to plan more surges. Our military, like the Soviet one, has not lost a battle and has occupied whatever ground it chose to take. Yet, in the process, it has won less than nothing at all. Our country, still far more wealthy than the Soviet Union ever was, has nonetheless entered its Soviet phase. At home, in the increasing emphasis on surveillance of every sort, there is even a hint of what made “soviet” and “totalitarian” synonymous.

The parallels are indeed quite disturbing. It is hard not to conclude that the US is past its peak and beginning what could turn out to be a very ugly descent.

As for an 'arms race of one', nobody can win at that game (except the defense contractors getting super rich).

[Americano]

Engelbert has long been a commentator on Asia Times and I've seldom disagreed with his opinions. Realism is not a US media priority.

During the recent political circus of US 2012 budget matters, not one disagreement was expressed about 'defense' spending. I think that says it all. The US general public is more concerned about entertainment quality, sociability and which vehicle to drive than anything else, circumstances special interests exploit to deter critical thinking.

[Michael]

Engelbert has long been a commentator on Asia Times and I've seldom disagreed with his opinions. Realism is not a US media priority.

During the recent political circus of US 2012 budget matters, not one disagreement was expressed about 'defense' spending. I think that says it all. The US general public is more concerned about entertainment quality, sociability and which vehicle to drive than anything else, circumstances special interests exploit to deter critical thinking.

Yes, it is rather bizarre that official Washington is up in arms about controlling spending, yet they all apparently agree that the one program spending that is indeed out of control (defense spending) is entirely off-limits.

US defense spending has DOUBLED in real terms since 2001.

[Donkey]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57410.html

Must be election season.

[Michael]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57410.html

Must be election season.

They ain't do no good in Afghanistan - only making more trouble for the US down the road - so all in all, its a good policy to withdraw.

[Donkey]

They ain't do no good in Afghanistan - only making more trouble for the US down the road - so all in all, its a good policy to withdraw.

I agree. One of those weird moments where political expediency is actually ok policy.

I guess we're not a "stay the course" country with a Democrat in office.

[Americano]

Republican politicians with national ambition are voicing Afghanistan troop withdrawal positions. I haven't seen that since Nixon was elected on a campaign platform of ending the Vietnam War and taking three years to do it.
The GOP is after moderate votes.