2003 American troops killed in Afghanistan, that is nothing to be proud of. We are proud of these brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and morn and pray for their families and friends who are so devastated by the loss of someone they love. I have no idea of the depth of grief, of the anger, of the pain and heartbreak they have and are experiencing. I do know it is time for us to get out of Afghanistan before we loose too many others for a nation that is so corrupt and so untrustworthy as an ally. Nothing in or about Afghanistan can justify the death of another American. That country, with it's two-faced, back-stabbing, corrupt leadership will lead their people on the path to Hell whether we leave now or at the the end of 2014. Our troops are to precious to be sacrificed for the profit margins of the American military-industrial complex and the profits of any American company that decides to risk doing business in Afghanistan. It is time for Pres Obama and Congress to bring our troops home now!
They have often come in the form of a bright flash, a deafening
thunderclap and a concussive blast wave that leaves the survivors dazed
or unconscious and the wounded and dead sprawled in the wreckage caused
by a roadside bomb, or Improvised Explosive Device, the main cause of
American casualties in Afghanistan.
But whether caused by IED, or rocket-propelled grenade, or automatic
rifle fire, the casualties are mounting toward a grim milestone.
According to a count by the Associated Press, two thousand Americans
have given their lives in Afghanistan during a war that has lasted
almost 11 years.
The Pentagon announced the latest casualty Sunday: Sgt. 1st Class
Riley G. Stephens, a 39-year-old from Tolar, in north central Texas.
Assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group out of Fort
Bragg, N.C., he was killed by enemy small arms fire, the Pentagon said.
American battle casualties have mounted steadily despite a frenetic,
decade-long effort by the Pentagon to defeat or defend against the
deadly IEDs, often primitive devices made of homemade explosives buried
in a plastic bucket, wired to detonation cord with two cast-off
flashlight batteries.
Just over 40 percent of American battle casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IEDs, according to a count by the Brookings Institution.
Until recently, the Defense Department had routinely published similar
data on the causes of battlefield casualties, but the data was taken off
its website because of its sensitive nature, an official told The
Huffington Post.
While the official Defense Department count of American deaths in
Afghanistan, currently at 1,657, lags behind the AP count, both vastly
understate the tragedy and the true human cost of war.
American battle casualties, including dead and wounded, have mounted
to 55,216 since the United States launched a war in Afghanistan 11 years
ago and then initiated eight years of deadly fighting in Iraq by
invading in 2003.
The roster of American wounded -- over 17,000 in Afghanistan and
32,000 in Iraq -- include some 17,000 young Americans with multiple
severe wounds. Through July 2012, the Defense Department recorded 1,655
amputations due to battle injuries, acording to data drawn up for The
Huffington Post by the U.S. Army Surgeon General. The wounds include
those with disabling genital wounds.
But the carnage spreads far beyond physical wounds. According to the Armed Forces Health Survillance Center,
3,299 American troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have been diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury
since 2003. That data almost certainly understates the number suffering
from mild, moderate or severe brain injury because the military didn't
begin testing for TBI on the battlefield until 2007. Even now, precise
diagnosis of TBI is not possible, according to the Defense Department's senior TBI specialist.
In cold cash, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers $1.4 trillion. But that's only a down payment, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
which estimates that the cost of health care for Iraq and Afghanistan
war veterans will reach between $40 billion and $55 billion.
Other demands for education, housing and pension benefits will drive
the Department of Veterans Affairs' long-term costs into the trillions
of dollars, some officials believe.
But any measure of the war's dead, including some 20,000 Afghan
civilians and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians, will necessarily fall far
short of the true cost of young lives cut off, of grieving families, of
children without a parent.
Nor can the burden on the survivors, the 2.5 million Americans who
served in Iraq or Afghanistan, be properly weighed. Even senior
officials at the Pentagon and the VA say privately they cannot
accurately describe what life will be like for the severely wounded and
their families, who face decades of complex medical care and uncertain
rehabilitation.
While the technology of prosthetic limbs has advanced dramatically
since 2001, the long-term effects of living with artificial limbs is not
known. Nor are the long-term physical and emotional costs of those who have suffered deep burns in IED explosions and are living with extensive and often painful scarring.
Even less is known about the long-term effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. Recent studies have suggested
that some forms of TBI may subject the wounded to a greater likelihood
of degenerative brain disease later in life. But few long-term studies
have been completed and the Obama administration recently announced a
$100 million boost in research on military brain injury.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/casualties-afghanistan-war_n_1927691.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=100112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label hamid karzai. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hamid karzai. Show all posts
05 October 2012
03 May 2012
Why wait till 2014? End the War in Afghanistan NOW from USACTION / TRUE MAJORITY 3MAI12 & Poll: Few in U.S. sense Afghan support for war 11MAR12
THE agreement signed with Afghanistan is meaningless, the corrupt government of hamid karzai is incapable of any honor and so can not be trusted to honor the terms of this document. Negotiations with the taliban are futile, they are as corrupt as the government they are fighting. We are wasting American, NATO and Afghan lives every day this war goes on. It is time to stop the killing and to bring our troops home. Please sign the petition from USAction / True Majority calling on Congress to stop the funding for the war and to provide funding only for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops now! We need to keep up the pressure on the government to end this war now, before the end of 2014.

![]() |
|||||||
|
Poll: Few in U.S. sense Afghan support for war
By Jon Cohen
Few Americans sense widespread Afghan support for what
the United States is trying to do in that country, a perception that
bolsters public backing of a troop withdrawal, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Overall views of the war in Afghanistan are in the pits: 60 percent of Americans see the war as not worth its costs, nearly double the 35 percent saying the decade-long effort has warranted the expense and lost lives. There has been consistent majority opposition to the war for nearly two years.
Big majorities of Democrats and independents continue to call the war not worth its costs, and for the first time in polls stretching back five years, Republicans are evenly divided on whether the war has justified its price. Also for the first time, more Republicans “strongly” see the war as not worth fighting as see it as strongly justifying its costs.

(Washington Post-ABC News) Republicans are far more apt than Democrats or independents to support keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan until the Afghan army is well-enough trained to operate independently.
Overall, 54 percent of all Americans want to pull out U.S. troops from Afghanistan even if the Afghan army is not adequately trained to carry on the fight. About six in 10 Democrats and independents back this position, but the number slides to just under four in 10 among Republicans.
One key driver — across party lines — is a broadly held view that most Afghans are not supportive of U.S. efforts there.
Just 30 percent of Americans sense that most Afghans endorse what the United States is trying to do, and two-thirds of those who see Afghans as behind U.S. initiatives there want American troops to stay in the country until the Afghan army has been trained as a capable fighting force. It’s a mirror-image among those who see the Afghans as opposing the U.S. role: here, two-thirds want a troop withdrawal, regardless of the Afghans’ capacity.

(Washington Post-ABC News) The poll was conducted March 7-10, among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Overall views of the war in Afghanistan are in the pits: 60 percent of Americans see the war as not worth its costs, nearly double the 35 percent saying the decade-long effort has warranted the expense and lost lives. There has been consistent majority opposition to the war for nearly two years.
Big majorities of Democrats and independents continue to call the war not worth its costs, and for the first time in polls stretching back five years, Republicans are evenly divided on whether the war has justified its price. Also for the first time, more Republicans “strongly” see the war as not worth fighting as see it as strongly justifying its costs.
(Washington Post-ABC News) Republicans are far more apt than Democrats or independents to support keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan until the Afghan army is well-enough trained to operate independently.
Overall, 54 percent of all Americans want to pull out U.S. troops from Afghanistan even if the Afghan army is not adequately trained to carry on the fight. About six in 10 Democrats and independents back this position, but the number slides to just under four in 10 among Republicans.
One key driver — across party lines — is a broadly held view that most Afghans are not supportive of U.S. efforts there.
Just 30 percent of Americans sense that most Afghans endorse what the United States is trying to do, and two-thirds of those who see Afghans as behind U.S. initiatives there want American troops to stay in the country until the Afghan army has been trained as a capable fighting force. It’s a mirror-image among those who see the Afghans as opposing the U.S. role: here, two-thirds want a troop withdrawal, regardless of the Afghans’ capacity.
(Washington Post-ABC News) The poll was conducted March 7-10, among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
30 December 2011
What Taliban Ringtones Tell Us About The Afghan War 30DEZ11
MORE proof the government is lying to us about "progress" in Afghanistan. It is time to get out of Afghanistan, to end the waste of American and NATO and Afghan lives wounded and dead. It is time to end the financial and military support of the corrupt government of harmid karzai. It is time for the Afghan people to step up and take charge of their destiny, too bad they don't have the courage of the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Maybe if we got out of Afghanistan they would find the courage to reject the extremism of the taliban and establish a government of the people. This from Mother Jones......
Esther Gibbons/Flickr"Taliban ringtones."
Right off the bat it sounds like a laughable rumor, perhaps on par with urban legends involving Hello Kitty cocaine. Sadly, the reality of Taliban cellphone jingles isn't a joke at all to the people of Afghanistan—and can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. The Wall Street Journal reports:
—By Asawin Suebsaeng
Right off the bat it sounds like a laughable rumor, perhaps on par with urban legends involving Hello Kitty cocaine. Sadly, the reality of Taliban cellphone jingles isn't a joke at all to the people of Afghanistan—and can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Afghan shopkeeper Nasratullah Niazai has developed a brisk new business over the past year. For about $2 a pop, he uploads into customers' cellphones a collection of Taliban songs and ringtones...[T]he songs and ringtones romanticizing the insurgents' jihad against the infidel invaders serve as potentially lifesaving travel insurance for Kabulis who brave increasingly perilous countryside roads.The WSJ report cites the expanding industry of Taliban songs, chants, and ringtones—a Taliban spokesman claims that insurgents manage dozens of singers "each of whom produces on average of one 12-song album every month" to help "ensure that people don't turn to ungodly secular music." Much of the lyrical content focuses on lessons in Islamism and "bravery, manliness and protecting the country from the invaders," and many of the top-selling tunes are sung by kids with "beautiful and attractive voices."
Sentries at improvised Taliban checkpoints, some only an hour's drive away from central Kabul, routinely check travelers' cellphones. As a result, government officials, police, soldiers, security guards, university students, translators for Western companies, construction workers and scores of others go to extraordinary lengths to scrub their phones of any evidence of links to the coalition and the Afghan government—and to masquerade as Taliban sympathizers.
It's been over a decade since coalition forces overthrew the Taliban government. The Taliban's intense revulsion to secular music and pop culture is well documented. When Afghanistan was under the Taliban's sway, the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice and other regime actors patrolled the streets in efforts to "eradicate sin," which included the suppression of traditional Afghan folk and other musical genres that didn't fall under the rubric of unaccompanied Islamic or nationalistic anthems. The increasing popularity of "Taliban-safe phones" points to the continued sense of insecurity felt by Afghans as the US military prepares for a drawdown of one-third of its forces by September, according to Dion Nissenbaum and Habib Khan Totakhil.
Wired's Spencer Ackerman sees the news as yet another strong indication that the War in Afghanistan isn't going so hot in the restive countryside: "[W]hile the Taliban's ringtones echo from Afghan Nokias and Samsungs, Washington is reverting to a backup plan: courting the Taliban with secret diplomacy to end the war...In the meantime, the Taliban—already adept at texting death threats, tweeting its propaganda, and trolling the Americans—crank out about a dozen new ringtones every month for public consumption."
So, the whole ringtone-loyalty-test thing doesn't exactly spell doom for the wartorn nation. But it is a symptom of a broader, scarier potential breakdown, and a very tangible sign that the Taliban's influence in Afghanistan's rural areas is still quite substantial.
(h/t The Atlantic Wire)
Wired's Spencer Ackerman sees the news as yet another strong indication that the War in Afghanistan isn't going so hot in the restive countryside: "[W]hile the Taliban's ringtones echo from Afghan Nokias and Samsungs, Washington is reverting to a backup plan: courting the Taliban with secret diplomacy to end the war...In the meantime, the Taliban—already adept at texting death threats, tweeting its propaganda, and trolling the Americans—crank out about a dozen new ringtones every month for public consumption."
So, the whole ringtone-loyalty-test thing doesn't exactly spell doom for the wartorn nation. But it is a symptom of a broader, scarier potential breakdown, and a very tangible sign that the Taliban's influence in Afghanistan's rural areas is still quite substantial.
(h/t The Atlantic Wire)
Asawin Suebsaeng
Editorial FellowAsawin Suebsaeng is an editorial fellow at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips and insights to asuebsaeng [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
Afghan Prison Abuses: What Did Americans Know? And When Did They Know It?
Detainee abuse at prisons run by Afghan intelligence is rampant. But don't expect American officials to do much about it.Is the Taliban Now Ready to Deal?
The End of the Afghan War: Don't Hold Your Breath
Obama's "way forward in Afghanistan" doesn't promise any real progress at all.
25 October 2011
Army Ranger Dies on 14th War Deployment 25OCT11
MAKING us all more aware of the real sacrifices being made....and it makes me sad for their families and friends and very mad because there is no longer any justification for the deaths of any American troops in Afghanistan. Just the other day Afghan pres karzai told Pakistani government officials if they are attacked by American troops then Afghanistan will be on the side of Pakistan. Get our troops out of Afghanistan now and let these people wallow in their own blood if that is what they want! From Mother Jones....
By Adam Weinstein
By Adam Weinstein
As right-wing pundits decry the end of one US war and the conduct of another, they'd do well to consider the case of Sgt. 1st Class Kristoffer Bryan Domeij. The 10-year veteran of the elite Army Rangers was killed, along with two of his comrades, in an IED attack in Afghanistan on October 22. But Domeij's situation was special: He perished on his 14th war deployment since 2002.
Domeij's commanding officer, Col. Mark Odom, called him "the prototypical special operations" leader whose special skills—he was one of the first soldiers qualified to coordinate Air Force and Navy air attacks from his ground position—made him a hot commodity in the war zones. Domeij, he said, was a "veteran of a decade of deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of combat missions."
Domeij's commanding officer, Col. Mark Odom, called him "the prototypical special operations" leader whose special skills—he was one of the first soldiers qualified to coordinate Air Force and Navy air attacks from his ground position—made him a hot commodity in the war zones. Domeij, he said, was a "veteran of a decade of deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of combat missions."
Besides being loved by his colleagues, the San Diego-born Domeij was also (PDF) the married father of two daughters. Assuming an average deployment length of seven months—Army deployments are seldom shorter than that, and usually much longer—he probably spent at least 8 of his 29 years overseas, waging America's wars.*
It's easy to make too much of a case like this; Domeij, after all, was a voluntary soldier and a member of an elite special operations community whose motto is "Rangers lead the way." But a fit young person's willingness to serve his country is not the point; the point is whether this country is abusing its fit young people's sense of commitment. It's amazing (and encouraging) that, for all its shortcomings and divisions, the United States still has a supply of dedicated public servants. It's also amazing that we could exhaust our supply so dramatically that we could ask a man to spend nearly one-third of his brief life at war.
Domeij died along with Lieutenant Ashley White, 24, a cultural support specialist, and Pvt. 1st Class Christopher Horns, 20, who was on his first war tour. All three were working for the 2nd Battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and even other special operators appear shaken by their loss. As one former Ranger commented online: "A young line Ranger on his first deployment, a seasoned [leadership] Ranger on his 14th and a female Officer as part of the overall assault force. Things have certainly taken a turn for the surreal."
Another put it more succinctly: "2nd Batt is not having a good rotation."
* UPDATE: A knowledgeable reader points out that, as members of the SPECOPS community, Rangers handle their deployments differently from regular Army and Marine line units. By his estimation, Sgt. 1st Class Domeij likely spent closer to four or more years in the war zones, not including pre- and post-deployment training. And as our reader points out, it's not just the time you do, but what you do in that time:
It's easy to make too much of a case like this; Domeij, after all, was a voluntary soldier and a member of an elite special operations community whose motto is "Rangers lead the way." But a fit young person's willingness to serve his country is not the point; the point is whether this country is abusing its fit young people's sense of commitment. It's amazing (and encouraging) that, for all its shortcomings and divisions, the United States still has a supply of dedicated public servants. It's also amazing that we could exhaust our supply so dramatically that we could ask a man to spend nearly one-third of his brief life at war.
Domeij died along with Lieutenant Ashley White, 24, a cultural support specialist, and Pvt. 1st Class Christopher Horns, 20, who was on his first war tour. All three were working for the 2nd Battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and even other special operators appear shaken by their loss. As one former Ranger commented online: "A young line Ranger on his first deployment, a seasoned [leadership] Ranger on his 14th and a female Officer as part of the overall assault force. Things have certainly taken a turn for the surreal."
Another put it more succinctly: "2nd Batt is not having a good rotation."
* UPDATE: A knowledgeable reader points out that, as members of the SPECOPS community, Rangers handle their deployments differently from regular Army and Marine line units. By his estimation, Sgt. 1st Class Domeij likely spent closer to four or more years in the war zones, not including pre- and post-deployment training. And as our reader points out, it's not just the time you do, but what you do in that time:
The 75th Ranger Regiment typically deploys on 105-day deployments, i.e. a little longer than three months. What they lack in calendar length is made up in intensity: they typically conduct an operation every single night of their deployments with few exceptions. That someone has been deployed 14 times is mortifying and sad, especially in this case, but I do not believe there is anyone in the Army who has been deployed for eight out of the last 10 years.
Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' national security reporter. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
The End of the Afghan War: Don't Hold Your Breath
Obama's "way forward in Afghanistan" doesn't promise any real progress at all.Iraq On $256 Million a Day
A quick reminder of the true cost of more than eight years of war.50,000 Soldiers, 1 Million Pieces of Equipment, and $3 Trillion
A photographic tally of what America is really leaving behind in Iraq.The Dogs (and Cats) of War
In Iraq, can compassion for animals coexist with military strategy?
15 July 2011
Afghanistan Weekly Digest: Ahmed Wali Karzai. Veterans. NATO. 14JUL11
WE'RE still at war, here is this week's Afghanistan Weekly Digest from SOJO.
[Editors' note: As part of Sojourners' campaign to end the war in Afghanistan, we will run a weekly Afghanistan news digest to educate our readers about the latest news and developments related to the war, the U.S. military's strategy, and the people impacted by our decisions. Read more about our campaign at www.sojo.net/afghanistan.]
Hannah Lythe is policy and outreach associate at Sojourners.
- Afghan president’s half brother killed by a bodyguard: “President Hamid Karzai’s half brother, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan and a lightning rod for criticism of corruption in the government, was assassinated Tuesday by a close associate.”
- Veterans face high unemployment after military service: “Unemployment among recently returned veterans, already in double digits, is poised to get worse as more soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan. The jobless rate for veterans who served at any time since September 2001 — called Gulf War-era II veterans — was 13.3 percent in June, up from 12.1 percent the month before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June 2010 it was 11.5 percent.”
- Petraeus confident as he leaves Afghanistan: “Just days away from the end of his tour as the supreme military commander in Afghanistan, and the end of a 37-year military career, Gen. David H. Petraeus said he was leaving in the belief that his plan to turn around the war and hand over security to the Afghans could be achieved.”
- NATO says airstrike in Afghan province killed women and children: “NATO forces said Thursday that they had unwittingly killed several women and children a day earlier during an early morning air attack against militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan. The American-led coalition also said it was investigating separate reports of civilian deaths in a nearby province.”
- White House changes policy on condolence letters for military suicides: “For several administrations at least, the White House has declined to send letters of condolence to families of troops who committed suicide, even if those suicides occurred in combat zones. The policy was based on concerns within military circles that recognizing such deaths would encourage more suicides. But it infuriated many of those families, who felt they should have received the same kinds of letters sent to families of every service member killed in action.”
07 July 2011
Afghanistan Weekly Digest: David Cameron. Fighting Shifts. Soldiers. 7JUL11
UPDATES on the war in Afghanistan and the struggle to end this war and bring our troops home, from Sojourners....
[Editors' note: As part of Sojourners'
campaign to end the war in Afghanistan, we will run a weekly
Afghanistan news digest to educate our readers about the latest news
and developments related to the war, the U.S. military's strategy, and
the people impacted by our decisions. Read more about our campaign at www.sojo.net/afghanistan.]
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/07/07/afghanistan-weekly-digest-david-cameron-fighting-shifts-soldiers/
Hannah Lythe is policy and outreach associate at Sojourners.
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/07/07/afghanistan-weekly-digest-david-cameron-fighting-shifts-soldiers/
- Army program works to make soldiers fit in body and mind: “The Army, burdened by almost a decade of war and beset by increases in suicides, substance abuse and combat stress, embarked on the controversial $125 million project to instill psychological strength in soldiers the same way it teaches physical fitness.”
- David Cameron appeals to Taliban to cease fighting in Afghanistan: “Prime minister expresses sadness about latest British casualty in Afghanistan, saying it shows the ‘high price’ being paid to stabilise the country.”
- Elaborate ruse behind vast Kabul Bank fraud: “The top two officials of Kabul Bank used fake names, forged documents, fictitious companies and secret records as part of an elaborate ruse to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to shareholders and top Afghan officials, according to newly obtained documents and interviews.”
- Let’s not linger in Afghanistan: “We commend the president for sticking to the July date he had outlined for beginning the withdrawal. However, his plan would not remove all regular combat troops until 2014. We believe the United States is capable of achieving this goal by the end of 2012.”
- Fighting shifts to Afghanistan’s mountainous east: Listen to this story on NPR. “The American-led fight in Afghanistan is changing. The toughest fighting is shifting from the south — Helmand and Kandahar provinces — to the east. There, high, craggy mountains offer shelter to Taliban fighters.”
29 June 2011
Obama and Afghanistan: Here Comes the Political Battle 22JUN11 & Fraud Ruling Throws Afghan Parliament Into Disarray 28JUN11
ACTUALLY, hamid karzai isn't all that wrong in accusing the U.S. and the West of exploiting Afghanistan, even the part about sucking money out of it and dishonoring the Afghan people. Get past the knee-jerk reaction to his comments as being ungrateful for the Americans and NATO troops who have sacrificed life and limb(s) to keep him in power and make him a very rich man. Focus instead on the American and European interest, the military-industrial complex, and the politicians they own and control, that profit from our continued presence in Afghanistan. There is no diplomatic, economic, strategic or security benefit for the American people or the citizens of NATO by continuing the Afghan war. The only ones benefiting, or a better description is profiteering, are the companies that make weapons and have contracts with the American government to provide a variety of "services" in Afghanistan. They are sucking money, mostly American tax dollars, billions, out of Afghanistan. And karzai's charge of dishonoring the Afghan people? It is true, because after 10 years the best we have provided the Afghan people is a corrupt government in Kabul, corrupt and violent warlord governors in the provinces and little improvement in education, health care, security, human rights and economic development on top of tens of thousands of Afghans killed and maimed. President Obama's troop withdrawal does not go far enough. It is time to end this war and to bring our troops home now. This from MOJO.....
359th Signal Brigade/Flickr
Thirty thousand. That's reportedly the number of troops President Obama plans to announce on Wednesday night that he will pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2012 (with 10,000 to be out by the end of this year). Call this the Goldilocks approach—not too much, not too little. But the withdrawal of these troops will probably freak out the hawks (cue griping from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and their neocon comrades), while failing to satisfy the doves of the right and left who have been calling for an end to the war. Obama, though, will be able to present a strong argument that calling back about one-third of the US troops deployed in Afghanistan is indeed making good on his promise to start a meaningful draw-down in July 2011.
So prepare for plenty of debate and hand-wringing over the number. But the more fundamental matter remains: What are America's aims in Afghanistan and can they be accomplished?
The President's announcement that he will withdraw 30,000-plus troops is unlikely to satisfy hawks or doves, but sure to fuel the burgeoning debate on the war.
UPDATE: No surprise. In his speech on Wednesday night, Obama said he would de-surge the 33,000 troops he surged into Afghanistan after December 2009. He noted that 10,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, and the rest by September 2012. After that, he said, there will be a steady withdrawal, as the United States completes a transfer of security responsibilities to the Afghan government by the end of 2014. Thirty thousand. That's reportedly the number of troops President Obama plans to announce on Wednesday night that he will pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2012 (with 10,000 to be out by the end of this year). Call this the Goldilocks approach—not too much, not too little. But the withdrawal of these troops will probably freak out the hawks (cue griping from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and their neocon comrades), while failing to satisfy the doves of the right and left who have been calling for an end to the war. Obama, though, will be able to present a strong argument that calling back about one-third of the US troops deployed in Afghanistan is indeed making good on his promise to start a meaningful draw-down in July 2011.
So prepare for plenty of debate and hand-wringing over the number. But the more fundamental matter remains: What are America's aims in Afghanistan and can they be accomplished?
White House aides consistently say that the goal of the war is to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda." That's been Obama's mantra since entering the White House. And this seems like a reasonable goal. But it's been unclear—at least to much of the public—why it's necessary to maintain a large, on-the-ground troop presence in Afghanistan, where there are only a handful of Al Qaeda fighters. The obvious retort is: to keep Al Qaeda from once again exploiting Afghanistan, a state with weak governmental and security structures, as a safe haven. But as Obama demonstrated with the covert and daring mission that killed Osama bin Laden, a ground operation involving tens of thousands of troops targeting the Taliban and other indigenous forces might not be the most effective or efficient way to crush Al Qaeda. Especially when such an endeavor requires an extensive partnership with inept, corrupt, and less-than-reliable institutions—that is, the Afghan government and security forces. Days ago, Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced the United States and other Western allies for exploiting Afghanistan, sucking money out of it, and dishonoring the country's people. Outgoing US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry responded sharply: "When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost—in terms of lives and treasure—hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they are only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people…[they] are filled with confusion and grow weary of our effort here.”
With a partner like that—and at a cost of over a hundred billion a year—it's no wonder that Obama's war in Afghanistan is increasingly coming under political assault. Not surprisingly, this comes as public opinion turns further against the war. A recent poll showed that 73 percent of American desire withdrawing a “substantial number” of US combat forces from Afghanistan.
For years, Afghanistan—as a political or policy question—was off the political radar screen in the United States. It was hardly an issue in recent elections, and it's provoked little debate in the House and Senate. But in recent months, discussion and criticism have increased—on both the right and the left. A large number of House Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans last month to force a vote on requiring Obama to establish a timetable for withdrawal; they lost on a close 215-204 vote. Twenty-seven senators—including two freshman Republicans, Mike Lee and Rand Paul—have sent a letter to Obama demanding a "sizable and sustained" withdrawal. Leading Democratic senators, including John Kerry, who chairs the foreign relations committee, and Carl Levin, who heads the armed services committee, have been leaning on Obama to proceed with a significant draw-down. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, when he was flirting with the notion of running in the GOP presidential primary, voiced skepticism about the war in Afghanistan. At a recent candidates debate in New Hampshire, front-running Mitt Romney exclaimed, "It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes from our generals.’’ He was quickly bashed by McCain and Graham. The latter warned Romney: "If you think the pathway to the GOP nomination in 2012 is to get to Barack Obama's left on Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, you're going to meet a lot of headwinds." And McCain, slamming the "isolationist strain" among the 2012 contenders, played the ultimate GOP trump card: “I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today… That’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people…all over the world.” Still, Sarah Palin told Fox News that she'd like to see the United States "back out a little bit perhaps sooner"—as long as that would be okay with General David Petraeus. (Pentagon push-back against Obama's withdrawal is possible, but for months the President has been saying he is confident that military leaders will accept his decision.)
Since becoming president, Obama has been able to escape political fisticuffs over Afghanistan. His party, though not happy with his surge-first policy, did not raise too big a fuss about his decision to send more troops. Republicans generally backed Obama's assertive stance, while fretting aloud that the commander-in-chief might eventually go soft. And doubting GOPers did not have the political space to make a charge of their own. Yet now there appears to be opportunity for all camps to express themselves fully, and this could lead to a storm on several fronts—Democrats opposing Democrats, Republicans tussling with Republicans—as partisans and policy experts battle over what constitutes a true withdrawal (Levin, for instance, wants 15,000 troops out by the end of this year), whether a withdrawal is the right course, and whether and how to proceed post-withdrawal with the mission of handing over security responsibilities and anti-Taliban operations to the still-hapless Afghan government and security forces. And by the way, there's the contentious issue of whether Kabul (and Washington) ought to be attempting some sort of negotiations with some factions of the Taliban.
In the middle of all this debating sits the commander in chief. Obama will be able to depict a troop reduction of 30,000 as a serious step toward disengagement. That may win over—or at least not irritate—the independent voters he will need in 2012; it may appease Democratic base voters who have always been uneasy with the war (though not the progressive leaders who decry it). And there's no telling whether this reduction will lead to true progress in Afghanistan—whatever that might mean. Nevertheless, Obama's announcement is likely to fuel the rising debate in Congress and within the GOP roadshow, rather than calm it. This slow end to his surge in Afghanistan could well trigger a surge in political volatility at home—as this unpopular war slogs on and the next US election nears.
With a partner like that—and at a cost of over a hundred billion a year—it's no wonder that Obama's war in Afghanistan is increasingly coming under political assault. Not surprisingly, this comes as public opinion turns further against the war. A recent poll showed that 73 percent of American desire withdrawing a “substantial number” of US combat forces from Afghanistan.
For years, Afghanistan—as a political or policy question—was off the political radar screen in the United States. It was hardly an issue in recent elections, and it's provoked little debate in the House and Senate. But in recent months, discussion and criticism have increased—on both the right and the left. A large number of House Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans last month to force a vote on requiring Obama to establish a timetable for withdrawal; they lost on a close 215-204 vote. Twenty-seven senators—including two freshman Republicans, Mike Lee and Rand Paul—have sent a letter to Obama demanding a "sizable and sustained" withdrawal. Leading Democratic senators, including John Kerry, who chairs the foreign relations committee, and Carl Levin, who heads the armed services committee, have been leaning on Obama to proceed with a significant draw-down. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, when he was flirting with the notion of running in the GOP presidential primary, voiced skepticism about the war in Afghanistan. At a recent candidates debate in New Hampshire, front-running Mitt Romney exclaimed, "It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes from our generals.’’ He was quickly bashed by McCain and Graham. The latter warned Romney: "If you think the pathway to the GOP nomination in 2012 is to get to Barack Obama's left on Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, you're going to meet a lot of headwinds." And McCain, slamming the "isolationist strain" among the 2012 contenders, played the ultimate GOP trump card: “I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today… That’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people…all over the world.” Still, Sarah Palin told Fox News that she'd like to see the United States "back out a little bit perhaps sooner"—as long as that would be okay with General David Petraeus. (Pentagon push-back against Obama's withdrawal is possible, but for months the President has been saying he is confident that military leaders will accept his decision.)
Since becoming president, Obama has been able to escape political fisticuffs over Afghanistan. His party, though not happy with his surge-first policy, did not raise too big a fuss about his decision to send more troops. Republicans generally backed Obama's assertive stance, while fretting aloud that the commander-in-chief might eventually go soft. And doubting GOPers did not have the political space to make a charge of their own. Yet now there appears to be opportunity for all camps to express themselves fully, and this could lead to a storm on several fronts—Democrats opposing Democrats, Republicans tussling with Republicans—as partisans and policy experts battle over what constitutes a true withdrawal (Levin, for instance, wants 15,000 troops out by the end of this year), whether a withdrawal is the right course, and whether and how to proceed post-withdrawal with the mission of handing over security responsibilities and anti-Taliban operations to the still-hapless Afghan government and security forces. And by the way, there's the contentious issue of whether Kabul (and Washington) ought to be attempting some sort of negotiations with some factions of the Taliban.
In the middle of all this debating sits the commander in chief. Obama will be able to depict a troop reduction of 30,000 as a serious step toward disengagement. That may win over—or at least not irritate—the independent voters he will need in 2012; it may appease Democratic base voters who have always been uneasy with the war (though not the progressive leaders who decry it). And there's no telling whether this reduction will lead to true progress in Afghanistan—whatever that might mean. Nevertheless, Obama's announcement is likely to fuel the rising debate in Congress and within the GOP roadshow, rather than calm it. This slow end to his surge in Afghanistan could well trigger a surge in political volatility at home—as this unpopular war slogs on and the next US election nears.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. Get David Corn's RSS feed.
President Obama's announcement last week that U.S. troops will begin leaving Afghanistan this summer has prompted questions about whether the country's democracy can stand on its own.
Those questions come as the Afghan government has been thrown into disarray. A tribunal appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai has revoked 25 percent of the seats awarded last September, reviving a dispute over the parliamentary elections.
It took months after last year's elections to seat the Afghan Parliament, with credible allegations of fraud disqualifying many candidates. Intense pressure from the United States and the United Nations helped seat the body, but Karzai still had one more card to play. His special tribunal pronounced that 62 members of Parliament would be replaced on fraud charges.
Sitting members of Parliament made a mute protest of the announcement, slapping their desks as the speaker asked them to welcome the new results. As the session let out, Fowzia Kufi, a representative from northern Badakshan province, said Karzai is trying to neutralize one of the few checks on his executive power.
"The strategy is to reduce the power of democratic institutions which could bring checks and balance ... to the fraud, the corruption," Kufi says. "They try to make the Parliament as weak as they could."
Mixed Reaction
Kufi admits that Parliament has been weak so far, in part because Karzai's special tribunal was a sword hanging over their heads: Many feared they could be removed and have been hesitant to challenge the president. She says the tribunal is not constitutional and undermines Afghanistan's fragile democracy.
"It will fuel insecurity and it will give legitimacy to Taliban to go to the villages and say democracy doesn't work in Afghanistan," she says.
Of course, many of the allegations of fraud were credible, and Karzai's ruling was a victory for some candidates who had claimed for months that they had been robbed of their seats. Daud Sultanzoi, from Ghazni province, was granted a seat by the tribunal.
"We took the matter to the courts, to the rule of law, and we wanted the rule of law to make the decision, not the rule of jungle and not the bullets," Sultanzoi says. "This is a very proud moment for the people of Afghanistan."
Sultanzoi compared the tribunal's ruling to the way the U.S. Supreme Court decided the presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush.
An Overreach?
But there is great controversy over whether Karzai had the authority to create the tribunal, which he says supersedes Afghanistan's electoral bodies. The president's spokesman, Waheed Omar, refused to speculate about how the constitutional question would be resolved, but delivered a stern warning that the international community should not interfere.
"It's important that we uphold the constitution here in Afghanistan, and that can only happen if the state institutions in Afghanistan are allowed to look for a resolution, and that nobody else outside the state institutions makes judgments or references, or issues verdicts as to what is right and what is wrong," Omar said.
But MPs say Karzai is trying to paralyze the Parliament by keeping the dispute going. They fear Karzai is clearing obstacles away from his goal of changing the constitution to allow himself a third term.
As for international interference, one MP said it's the only thing keeping Afghan democracy on track. Democracy here will end, he said, the moment the last foreign soldier leaves the country.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137457854/fraud-ruling-throws-afghan-parliament-into-disarray&sc=nl&cc=nh-20110628
Fraud Ruling Throws Afghan Parliament Into Disarray
Enlarge Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP Defeated candidates from Afghanistan's September 2010 election wait for the resumption of proceedings of a special tribunal in a Kabul courtroom on Thursday. The tribunal decided that 62 members of Parliament would be replaced on fraud charges.
Those questions come as the Afghan government has been thrown into disarray. A tribunal appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai has revoked 25 percent of the seats awarded last September, reviving a dispute over the parliamentary elections.
It took months after last year's elections to seat the Afghan Parliament, with credible allegations of fraud disqualifying many candidates. Intense pressure from the United States and the United Nations helped seat the body, but Karzai still had one more card to play. His special tribunal pronounced that 62 members of Parliament would be replaced on fraud charges.
Sitting members of Parliament made a mute protest of the announcement, slapping their desks as the speaker asked them to welcome the new results. As the session let out, Fowzia Kufi, a representative from northern Badakshan province, said Karzai is trying to neutralize one of the few checks on his executive power.
"The strategy is to reduce the power of democratic institutions which could bring checks and balance ... to the fraud, the corruption," Kufi says. "They try to make the Parliament as weak as they could."
Mixed Reaction
Kufi admits that Parliament has been weak so far, in part because Karzai's special tribunal was a sword hanging over their heads: Many feared they could be removed and have been hesitant to challenge the president. She says the tribunal is not constitutional and undermines Afghanistan's fragile democracy.
"It will fuel insecurity and it will give legitimacy to Taliban to go to the villages and say democracy doesn't work in Afghanistan," she says.
Of course, many of the allegations of fraud were credible, and Karzai's ruling was a victory for some candidates who had claimed for months that they had been robbed of their seats. Daud Sultanzoi, from Ghazni province, was granted a seat by the tribunal.
"We took the matter to the courts, to the rule of law, and we wanted the rule of law to make the decision, not the rule of jungle and not the bullets," Sultanzoi says. "This is a very proud moment for the people of Afghanistan."
Sultanzoi compared the tribunal's ruling to the way the U.S. Supreme Court decided the presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush.
An Overreach?
But there is great controversy over whether Karzai had the authority to create the tribunal, which he says supersedes Afghanistan's electoral bodies. The president's spokesman, Waheed Omar, refused to speculate about how the constitutional question would be resolved, but delivered a stern warning that the international community should not interfere.
"It's important that we uphold the constitution here in Afghanistan, and that can only happen if the state institutions in Afghanistan are allowed to look for a resolution, and that nobody else outside the state institutions makes judgments or references, or issues verdicts as to what is right and what is wrong," Omar said.
But MPs say Karzai is trying to paralyze the Parliament by keeping the dispute going. They fear Karzai is clearing obstacles away from his goal of changing the constitution to allow himself a third term.
As for international interference, one MP said it's the only thing keeping Afghan democracy on track. Democracy here will end, he said, the moment the last foreign soldier leaves the country.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137457854/fraud-ruling-throws-afghan-parliament-into-disarray&sc=nl&cc=nh-20110628
If You Liked This From Mojo, You Might Also Like...
Slouching Out of Afghanistan
Any way you slice it, the most we're doing is getting back to 2009 troop levels.Afghan War Costs $57,077.60 per Minute
A 30,000-person surge will coast at least $30 billion.Drone Wars in Afghanistan
Friendly fire, civilian casualties, and a holographic goggle boondoggle: MJ's military reporter discusses UAVs in Southwest Asia on The Alyona Show.Afghanistan's Burned Brides
A hospital tries to save women who've set themselves ablaze. And a prosecutor tries to get them justice.Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq...Zombies?
Why we need Daniel Drezner's "Theories of International Politics and Zombies."
02 February 2011
Michael Hastings On Afghanistan: Petraeus Is Pursuing A 'Failed Strategy' 2FEB11
A fascinating piece from Huffington Post on the failed strategy of the American government on Afghanistan, and of the waste of American and NATO and Afghan lives and billions of U.S. tax dollars....and the greed and propaganda and deception, lies and manipulation of the American people by the military-industrial complex. It is time for America to end this failed war and get out of Afghanistan. The entire 'King David's War' from Rolling Stone can be read on the Afghan War Diaries page of this blog......
Michael Hastings' latest dispatch from the War in Afghanistan pretty much picks up where his piece, "The Runaway General," leaves off. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of duty and President Barack Obama turns to Gen. David Petraeus -- last seen fainting at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- to take charge of the effort in Afghanistan.
The immediate and popular thing to say about Petraeus at the time was some variation on, "Great news! This is the guy who wrote the book on counter-insurgency strategy." My own take on that matter was that McChrystal had been, at the time Hastings' piece blew him out of his commission, applying COIN in a pretty faithful, by-the-book manner. Indeed, much of what Hastings had to say about McChrystal's tactics bore that out -- with the additional news that the rank and file were starting to chafe at following a strategy that demanded that they assume a higher degree of danger.
When Petraeus assumed command, the initial reports on what-was-to-happen-next suggested that Petraeus was going to re-up on COIN. In Stars And Stripes, John Vandiver reported that Petraeus had no plans to alter the rules of engagement -- rather, he would "clarify actions soldiers may take to clear up confusion and alleviate frustration in the field."
It sure looked to me as if Petraeus was going to follow the standard COINdinista line -- promising a continuity of command, while alleviating the discontent of the soldiers who were tasked with carrying out the strategy. But according to Hastings' latest, Petraeus actually seems to have taken the counterinsurgency field manual, and 'roided it up quite a bit:
That has a lot of interesting implications!
Hastings has a lot more worthwhile information to unpack, most notably the internecine sparring that went down over the most recent strategy review between Petraeus and the intelligence community. It all ended up in a final product that's entirely bogged down in foggy contradictions -- "We are making progress, but that progress is fragile and reversible. We have broken the momentum of the Taliban, but there will still be heavy fighting next year. The troops will start coming home soon, but they won't start coming home soon. We aren't "nation-building," the president says, though we'll stay in Afghanistan past 2014 to build its nation" -- the upshot of which is that you had better not have been counting on that July 2011 drawdown.
Go read the whole thing.
RELATED:
King David's War [Michael Hastings @ Rolling Stone]
Michael Hastings' latest dispatch from the War in Afghanistan pretty much picks up where his piece, "The Runaway General," leaves off. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of duty and President Barack Obama turns to Gen. David Petraeus -- last seen fainting at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- to take charge of the effort in Afghanistan.
The immediate and popular thing to say about Petraeus at the time was some variation on, "Great news! This is the guy who wrote the book on counter-insurgency strategy." My own take on that matter was that McChrystal had been, at the time Hastings' piece blew him out of his commission, applying COIN in a pretty faithful, by-the-book manner. Indeed, much of what Hastings had to say about McChrystal's tactics bore that out -- with the additional news that the rank and file were starting to chafe at following a strategy that demanded that they assume a higher degree of danger.
When Petraeus assumed command, the initial reports on what-was-to-happen-next suggested that Petraeus was going to re-up on COIN. In Stars And Stripes, John Vandiver reported that Petraeus had no plans to alter the rules of engagement -- rather, he would "clarify actions soldiers may take to clear up confusion and alleviate frustration in the field."
It sure looked to me as if Petraeus was going to follow the standard COINdinista line -- promising a continuity of command, while alleviating the discontent of the soldiers who were tasked with carrying out the strategy. But according to Hastings' latest, Petraeus actually seems to have taken the counterinsurgency field manual, and 'roided it up quite a bit:
Taking over from McChrystal, Petraeus moved quickly to institute his own, more aggressive version of COIN -- one that calls for lots of killing, lots of cash and lots of spin. He loosened the restrictions McChrystal had placed on the rules of engagement, giving U.S. soldiers the green light to use artillery, destroy property and defend themselves more vigorously. He drastically upped the number of airstrikes, launching more than 3,450 between July and November, the most since the invasion in 2001. He introduced U.S. tanks into the battle, unleashed Apache and Kiowa attack helicopters, and tripled the number of night raids by Special Forces. The fighting was calculated to force the Taliban to the bargaining table and reduce NATO casualties, which soared to 711 last year -- the highest of the war."On the political front," says Hastings, "Petraeus knew that his primary weapon was money." And where did that money go? As it turns out, a lot of went to "Afghan militias that effectively operate as local gangs, outside the control of the Afghan army and police."
That has a lot of interesting implications!
During his time in Iraq, Petraeus earned the nickname King David, for the imperious manner in which he ruled over the ancient city of Mosul. In Afghanistan, a more apt honorific might be the Godfather. To get America out of the war, Petraeus has turned to the network of warlords, drug runners and thieves known as the Afghan government, which the general himself has denounced as a "criminal syndicate." Within weeks of assuming command, Petraeus pushed through an ambitious program to create hundreds of local militias -- essentially a neighborhood watch armed with AK-47s. Under Petraeus, the faltering operation has been expanded from 18 districts to more than 60, with plans to ramp it up from 10,000 men to 30,000. In Afghanistan, however, arming local militias means, by definition, placing guns in the hands of some of the country's most ruthless thugs, who rule their territory with impunity. In the north, Petraeus is relying on Atta Mohammed Noor, a notorious warlord-turned-governor considered to be one of the most powerful men in Afghanistan, to prepare militias for a long fight with the Taliban. Smaller militias in the region -- which have been likened to an L.A. "gang" by their own American advisers -- are also getting U.S. training. In the east, where violence has significantly increased, efforts to back local strongmen have already resulted in intertribal violence. And in the south, Petraeus has given near-unconditional support to Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president's brother and one of the country's most unsavory gangsters.I point this part out only because recent events compel me to note that this might best be called the "micro-Mubarak/micro-funding strategy."
Story continues below"The Americans have backed so many warlords in so many ways, it's very hard to see how you unscramble the egg now," says John Matisonn, a former top U.N. official who left Kabul last June. "There has never been a strategy to get rid of the warlords, who are the key problem. The average Afghan hates them, whether they're backed by the Taliban or the Americans. They see them as criminals. They know that the warlords are fundamentally undermining the rule of law."
Hastings has a lot more worthwhile information to unpack, most notably the internecine sparring that went down over the most recent strategy review between Petraeus and the intelligence community. It all ended up in a final product that's entirely bogged down in foggy contradictions -- "We are making progress, but that progress is fragile and reversible. We have broken the momentum of the Taliban, but there will still be heavy fighting next year. The troops will start coming home soon, but they won't start coming home soon. We aren't "nation-building," the president says, though we'll stay in Afghanistan past 2014 to build its nation" -- the upshot of which is that you had better not have been counting on that July 2011 drawdown.
Go read the whole thing.
RELATED:
King David's War [Michael Hastings @ Rolling Stone]
02 January 2011
Lindsey Graham: Permanent U.S. Presence In Afghanistan Would Be 'Enormously Beneficial' 2JAN11
SENATOR graham needs to pull his head out of his ass and wipe the shit from his eyes so he can see the reality of Afghanistan....a corrupt, undemocratic government playing, along with the U.S. military-industrial complex, the American taxpayers as fools. War is business, and Karzai, along with his cabal of despots in Kabul and the greedy U.S. military contractors don't care how many U.S. and NATO servicemen and women are killed or wounded, don't care how many Afghan civilians are killed or wounded, as long as their profits from opium and heroin and weapons sales and security contracts aren't interrupted. It is time to end this war and to end it now. No more wasting American, NATO and Afghan lives, no more wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and no more propping up another corrupt, repressive, anti-democratic regime for security considerations that do not exist. NO MORE LIES, PROPAGANDA, DECEPTION, MANIPULATION, AND KILLING IN OUR NAME! Senator graham, you want a long term U.S. presence in Afghanistan, end your Senate term now and move to Kabul....and be sure to write.
NEW HAVEN -- There was, with really no notable exception, an absence of discussion of the Afghanistan war during the course of the 2010 campaign. But that may have been more a product of the electoral landscape (congressional races often don't lend themselves to foreign policy debates) and strategic timelines (the start date for withdrawal begins in July 2011) than anything else.
And, indeed, during an interview Sunday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) provided some indication that Republicans would push U.S. permanency in Afghanistan in the years ahead, insisting that it would be "enormously beneficial" to show that type of force "in perpetuity."
"I think it would be enormously beneficial to the region as well as Afghanistan," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We have had air bases all over the world and a couple of air bases in Afghanistan would allow the Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban in perpetuity. It would be a signal to Pakistan that the Taliban are never going to come back. In Afghanistan they could change their behavior. It would be a signal to the whole region that Afghanistan is going to be a different place.
"And if the Afghan people want this relationship, they are going to have to earn it. But I hope that they will seek a relationship with the United States so we can have an enduring relationship, economic and militarily and politically, and a couple of air bases in Afghanistan will give us an edge military, give the Afghan security forces an edge militarily to ensure that the country never goes back into the hands of the Taliban, which would be a stabilizing event throughout the whole region."
The word choice here by Graham may be a bit more dramatic than the policy prescription. The United States, as he noted, does have bases in Germany and Japan more than half-a-century after World War II ended.
But the notion that the U.S. imprint in Afghanistan will last as long as those two is something that America does not appear comfortable swallowing. Even President Obama has avoided talking about troop presences in those terms, saying only that a NATO contingent would remain in Afghanistan "long-term."
NEW HAVEN -- There was, with really no notable exception, an absence of discussion of the Afghanistan war during the course of the 2010 campaign. But that may have been more a product of the electoral landscape (congressional races often don't lend themselves to foreign policy debates) and strategic timelines (the start date for withdrawal begins in July 2011) than anything else.
And, indeed, during an interview Sunday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) provided some indication that Republicans would push U.S. permanency in Afghanistan in the years ahead, insisting that it would be "enormously beneficial" to show that type of force "in perpetuity."
"I think it would be enormously beneficial to the region as well as Afghanistan," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We have had air bases all over the world and a couple of air bases in Afghanistan would allow the Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban in perpetuity. It would be a signal to Pakistan that the Taliban are never going to come back. In Afghanistan they could change their behavior. It would be a signal to the whole region that Afghanistan is going to be a different place.
"And if the Afghan people want this relationship, they are going to have to earn it. But I hope that they will seek a relationship with the United States so we can have an enduring relationship, economic and militarily and politically, and a couple of air bases in Afghanistan will give us an edge military, give the Afghan security forces an edge militarily to ensure that the country never goes back into the hands of the Taliban, which would be a stabilizing event throughout the whole region."
WATCH:
The word choice here by Graham may be a bit more dramatic than the policy prescription. The United States, as he noted, does have bases in Germany and Japan more than half-a-century after World War II ended.
But the notion that the U.S. imprint in Afghanistan will last as long as those two is something that America does not appear comfortable swallowing. Even President Obama has avoided talking about troop presences in those terms, saying only that a NATO contingent would remain in Afghanistan "long-term."
Labels:
Afghanistan,
corruption,
cost of war,
deception,
govt contractors,
hamid karzai,
heroin,
lies,
military-industrial complex,
NATO,
opium,
propaganda,
sen lindsey graham r sc,
US Military
18 December 2010
Our Mounting Disaster in Afghanistan from MOJO 17DEZ10
The waste of life, both of American service personnel, NATO troops and Afghan troops and civilians, Iraqi troops and civilians has got to end. The waste of American resources, money and time, has got to end. This war is over, it is time to cut our losses and leave Afghanistan and Iraq to sort things out on their own. No more propaganda from the American government, no more manipulation of public opinion, no more lies. We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are sick of it, and are sick of the deception from the U.S. military, the administration and the military-industrial complex. End the wars now.
Richard Holbrooke's last words, spoken to his Pakistani surgeon before he was sedated for surgery a week ago, were "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan." The White House has since taken pains to tell us that he was speaking in jest, and perhaps that's just as well. Because recent news suggests that the war is neither going to end nor come to anything resembling a successful conclusion anytime soon.
Start with Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai. His attitude toward the United States, which has been all but clinically bipolar for quite some time, turned even more heated than usual recently when he met with several American officials to discuss the fate of private security firms. The Washington Post reports what happened:
rages both public and private against the American occupation. It's no longer possible even for paid optimists to pretend that we have his support in any but the most technical sense.
Then there's the US intelligence community, which recently reported to Congress that the Afghanistan war cannot be won unless Pakistan gets serious about rooting out Taliban militants on its side of the border. But the report goes on to say the Pakistani government and military "are not willing to do that," according to an official quoted by AP. "The document says Pakistan's government pays lip service to cooperating with US efforts against the militants, and still secretly backs the Taliban as a way of hedging its bets in order to influence Afghanistan after a US departure from the region."
Military commanders dispute the intelligence analysis, but their protests are hard to take seriously. Pakistan has been supporting the Taliban for over a decade, they barely even pretend these days to prevent them from crossing the border at will, and they know perfectly well there's no real leverage we can bring to bear to change their behavior. As Andrew Exum put it in an otherwise positive report after a recent visit to Afghanistan, "I do not see a coherent or otherwise effective strategy for dealing with the sanctuaries in Pakistan. I do not see it anywhere in the US government or within NATO, whose writ only extends to the borders of Afghanistan anyway."
Finally, support for the war in the US has fallen off a cliff. ABC News reports: "Public dissatisfaction with the war, now the nation's longest, has spiked by 7 points just since July. Given its costs vs. its benefits, only 34 percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the war's been worth fighting, down by 9 points to a new low."
The argument for optimism is that NATO forces have made substantial tactical gains in the past year: intelligence gathering is better, local support is stronger, security is improving, and the Taliban is in retreat. You can read a pretty good version of this case here, from Peter Mansoor and Max Boot. But tactical improvements only get you just so far. Our big long-term problems—lack of central government support, lack of Pakistani support, and lack of American public support—suggest pretty strongly that the war in Afghanistan isn't winnable in any ordinary sense of the word. It's hard to say if this has sunk in at the White House, which released its latest review of Afghanistan on Thursday and apparently plans to stay the course. Sort of. Troop withdrawals might begin next year, but only in token numbers. The new deadline is 2014, and even that's vague.
As Fred Kaplan says in his informative take on both the White House review and the thorny politics of the AfPak region, "Nothing about this war gets any easier." At this point, it's difficult to conclude that further US fighting in Afghanistan can do anything more than delay the inevitable—and possibly make it worse when it finally comes to pass. Without active support from Kabul, Islamabad, and the American taxpayer, tactical gains can never be more than limited and temporary. As bad as an American withdrawal from Afghanistan would be, our continued presence in the face of an impossible situation only makes it worse. A year ago Afghanistan still couldn't fairly be called anyone's Vietnam. Today, it's Obama's.
Start with Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai. His attitude toward the United States, which has been all but clinically bipolar for quite some time, turned even more heated than usual recently when he met with several American officials to discuss the fate of private security firms. The Washington Post reports what happened:
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.It is practically an axiom of counterinsurgency that success depends (among other things) on the active help of an effective and sympathetic government. It's become increasingly clear that we no longer have that in Afghanistan, if we ever did. The Karzai government is almost stunningly corrupt, it has effective control over only a fraction of the territory of Afghanistan, and Karzai himself in recent months has repeatedly gone into
Then there's the US intelligence community, which recently reported to Congress that the Afghanistan war cannot be won unless Pakistan gets serious about rooting out Taliban militants on its side of the border. But the report goes on to say the Pakistani government and military "are not willing to do that," according to an official quoted by AP. "The document says Pakistan's government pays lip service to cooperating with US efforts against the militants, and still secretly backs the Taliban as a way of hedging its bets in order to influence Afghanistan after a US departure from the region."
Military commanders dispute the intelligence analysis, but their protests are hard to take seriously. Pakistan has been supporting the Taliban for over a decade, they barely even pretend these days to prevent them from crossing the border at will, and they know perfectly well there's no real leverage we can bring to bear to change their behavior. As Andrew Exum put it in an otherwise positive report after a recent visit to Afghanistan, "I do not see a coherent or otherwise effective strategy for dealing with the sanctuaries in Pakistan. I do not see it anywhere in the US government or within NATO, whose writ only extends to the borders of Afghanistan anyway."
Finally, support for the war in the US has fallen off a cliff. ABC News reports: "Public dissatisfaction with the war, now the nation's longest, has spiked by 7 points just since July. Given its costs vs. its benefits, only 34 percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the war's been worth fighting, down by 9 points to a new low."
The argument for optimism is that NATO forces have made substantial tactical gains in the past year: intelligence gathering is better, local support is stronger, security is improving, and the Taliban is in retreat. You can read a pretty good version of this case here, from Peter Mansoor and Max Boot. But tactical improvements only get you just so far. Our big long-term problems—lack of central government support, lack of Pakistani support, and lack of American public support—suggest pretty strongly that the war in Afghanistan isn't winnable in any ordinary sense of the word. It's hard to say if this has sunk in at the White House, which released its latest review of Afghanistan on Thursday and apparently plans to stay the course. Sort of. Troop withdrawals might begin next year, but only in token numbers. The new deadline is 2014, and even that's vague.
As Fred Kaplan says in his informative take on both the White House review and the thorny politics of the AfPak region, "Nothing about this war gets any easier." At this point, it's difficult to conclude that further US fighting in Afghanistan can do anything more than delay the inevitable—and possibly make it worse when it finally comes to pass. Without active support from Kabul, Islamabad, and the American taxpayer, tactical gains can never be more than limited and temporary. As bad as an American withdrawal from Afghanistan would be, our continued presence in the face of an impossible situation only makes it worse. A year ago Afghanistan still couldn't fairly be called anyone's Vietnam. Today, it's Obama's.
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
Obama's Afghan Tightrope Walk
How can he sell Americans on more war and less war at the same time?Afghanistan's Ex-Spymaster Rips Karzai's Signature Policy
Afghanistan Shocker: Corruption is Rampant
Well-Spent (!) Dollars in Afghanistan
Hard Truths on Afghanistan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
