See other War, War, War Articles
Title: In Afghanistan, the Dam Breaks
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 16, 2012
Author: a
Post Date: 2012-03-16 16:29:09 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 138
Comments: 8
In Afghanistan, the Dam Breaks Posted: 03/16/2012 2:51 pm The news just keeps getting worse in Afghanistan for the United States. Brave New Foundation's Rethink Afghanistan project has warned for years that the premises of a counterinsurgency there were unrealistic and unworkable, and the ability of a handful of bad actors to completely seize control of the narrative with atrocious actions validates our warnings. The "hearts and minds" effort has completely melted down over the past few weeks, illustrating once again that this war isn't making us safer and it's not worth the costs. Yesterday, the Taliban suspended talks with the U.S. in Qatar due to the U.S.'s failure to follow through on releasing five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay. They also balked at the U.S.'s demand that the Taliban engage with the Karzai government, calling such a move "pointless." Karzai, for his part, is now demanding that U.S. troops get out -- now -- of Afghan rural areas and stay on their bases, likely in response to the butchering of 16 civilians by a U.S. military member in Kandahar. This isn't your run-of-the-mill bad news, either: "I'm really shocked, these are two pieces of very bad news," said one senior western diplomat in Kabul. "It's probably the bleakest day of my time here in Afghanistan." What you are seeing is the latest of any number of indicators over the last few months that the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is in total collapse. Two years into the escalated war effort, the rate of attacks initiated by insurgents continues to grow, up 14 percent in 2011 over 2010. And, when you consider that the prior year had already seen a 65 percent increase, it's clear that the promises of increased security and reduced civilian and military casualties fed to the American people by the Pentagon were just so much garbage propaganda. Lest we forget, Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in December 2009, prior to the latest escalation, that the new strategy "must -- and will -- improve security for the Afghan people and limit both future civilian and military casualties." Since then, almost 1,000 additional U.S. troops have been killed, 10,680 have been wounded, and countless Afghans have been killed, maimed or driven from their homes by the conflict. Our government has charged us $2 billion a week for this fiasco, right in the middle of an absolutely vicious jobs crisis. Mission accomplished? Hardly. Despite the continued lies from the Pentagon, the war effort is continuing to fail to bring security to Afghanistan or stop the march of the Taliban. This context makes the most recent litany of disasters that much more alarming: January 2012: a video of U.S. Marines urinating on dead insurgents--a clear violation of U.S. military and international law--sparks widespread outrage. February 20: U.S. forces burn copies of the Koran near a detention center in Parwan. Massive protests break out across Afghanistan resulting in several deaths, including the execution-style killing of two American servicemembers inside a heavily guarded Afghan ministry building, likely by one of their Afghan colleagues. March 11: A U.S. soldier goes on a rampage in Kandahar, killing 16 civilians before surrendering at his base. Today, Karzai demanded the immediate removal of U.S. troops from rural areas as the Taliban cut off talks with the U.S. The Associated Press analyzed Karzai's demand to remove U.S. troops from rural Afghanistan thus: "...It would essentially mean the end of the strategy of trying to win hearts and minds by working with and protecting the local populations." Come off it, people. We haven't even won over the hearts and minds of the security forces we're paying and training, much less the Afghan street, and the events of the last months make even saying the phrase, "hearts and minds" into a cynical joke. Protecting the population, by the way, requires you to actually reduce the total number of civilians being killed, maimed and displaced by the conflict. It's not happening. And by the way, Karzai's not the only one who wants U.S. troops out of rural Afghanistan ASAP. A majority of Americans say they want U.S. troops out ASAP, and 60 percent say the war hasn't been worth fighting. The war for hearts and minds is over. It's lost in Afghanistan, and it's lost at home. The president and Congress should do us all a favor and stop letting people get killed for it, and get our people out of there. Brave New Foundation's War Costs campaign is continuing the work of our Reth
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014 Opinions U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014 * Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size * Print * E-mail * Reprints By Ronald E. Neumann, Published: February 19 The Washington Post Ronald E. Neumann was U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007 and is the author of “The Other War: Winning and Losing in Afghanistan.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta provoked a widespread misunderstanding this month when he spoke of the U.S. military’s changing mission in Afghanistan, to that of an advisory role. Media reports of Panetta’s comments indicated that this meant U.S. forces would speed up their withdrawal from that country, when the White House has yet to make any such decision and the basic strategy of transition is unchanged. Compounding the confusion is the public’s misunderstanding of the current policy in Afghanistan — of transferring the “security lead” to the Afghans at the end of 2014 — the basic strategy of which remains unchanged. This transfer is not a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. Rather, the policy is that, after 2014, the Afghans will do the bulk of the fighting but will still have advisers from abroad in combat with them. U.S. forces are still expected to supply air support, artillery, medical evacuation and combat logistics after 2014 because the Afghan army will have none of these support services ready before 2016 at the earliest. The U.S. role will shift, but it is critically important to understand that, in the shift to a mission mainly devoted to advising and supporting — whatever the terms used — our forces will still be fighting on the ground, before, during and after 2014. Panetta made this explicit Feb. 4, saying at the Munich Security Conference that, after 2014, “we will engage in combat alongside the Afghans as necessary.” Thus the United States and its coalition allies face two big issues. The first, which Panetta focused on, is how to transition successfully to Afghans having the security lead. The second involves securing Afghanistan after the transition. While the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has achieved considerable success in southern Afghanistan, this is not true in the country’s east. There, security has declined: Insurgents have gained control in some areas, and an ISAF offensive needs to precede any transition. The transition strategy must be adaptable to these different situations. In some areas, the Afghans would lead, with U.S. advisers and with larger U.S. combat formations available to support as needed. In other areas, where tough clearing operations are required, the U.S. military would continue to lead for some time. The gradual shifting of roles that Panetta referred to needs to begin well before 2014 because it is going to need fine-tuning along the way. U.S. officers will have to turn over responsibilities to Afghan forces that will not be at U.S. levels of proficiency — letting them have room for mistakes but supporting them when trouble arises. Afghan soldiers need to develop confidence that, when the chips are down, help will arrive. While Afghans need to be pushed to take more responsibility, failure is likely if the process is artificially rushed, with green troops required to take too much responsibility too soon. Over the next three years, commanders will need the flexibility to judge not only where and when to transfer responsibility but where to reinforce with ISAF forces — to manage inevitable mistakes or to counter the enemy’s gains. These difficult judgments will require a flexible reserve force. This is why the Pentagon needs to retain for some time most, if not all, of the 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the withdrawals scheduled for this year. Operational judgments need to be based on the fighting, not on an artificial timetable. The White House has not decided on troop numbers after 2012, but the strategy Panetta discussed will need to keep up the force numbers well beyond mid-2013 or else risk failure. Public confusion arises not only from ill-considered words but because U.S. decisions need to be adopted by NATO, something that may not be achieved until the organization’s summit meeting in Chicago in May. This adds opacity to briefings since the policy cannot be fully declared in advance of buy-in by our allies. They, and we, must address not only the forces needed throughout transition but also the second big issue — how to fiscally and militarily sustain a post-2014 Afghanistan. The United States must avoid cutting funding for the Afghan forces just at the moment of their greatest challenge. We need to define our intentions and commitments after 2014 because transition has to be toward a defined goal, not a cliff over which we tumble. Concluding the current negotiations for a strategic partnership may clarify our purpose — if the current stalemate does not lead to their breakdown. The clarity and steadiness of our purpose will significantly affect whether Afghan forces focus on improving their capabilities or spend their time worrying about how to survive if we withdraw too soon. The strategy of transition asks our commanders for large measures of resolve, discipline and courage. They have every right to expect clarity and resolve from their political leaders. President Obama needs to explain his strategy to Americans, not talk only about withdrawal dates.
"...It would essentially mean the end of the strategy of trying to win hearts and minds by working with and protecting the local populations." The Dissociated Press is smokin' dope. I analyse it thus: "Get the #@(& out." This brings back vivid memories of the end of Vietnam, including the 1000-word reports, commentaries and analyses completely disconnected from any sort of reality. That embassy there looks pretty big and stout. They're sure to be able to land more than one chopper on the roof at a time. This, by the way, is the way they party there. Kabul U.S. Embassy Guard: Sexual Deviancy Required for Promotion Whistleblower Says Bosses Required Sex Acts for Guards Seeking Best shift, Promotion Private security guards at the U.S Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints. In an interview with ABC News for broadcast tonight on the "World News with Charles Gibson," the guard, a U.S. military veteran, said top supervisors of the ArmorGroup were not only aware of the "deviant sexual acts" but helped to organize them. "It was mostly the young guys fresh from the military who were told they had to participate," said the guard, who talked on a phone hook-up arranged by theProject on Government Oversight, which first revealed photographs of the parties. And punditry will pound its pud over the coming months wondering out loud where we went wrong. A people that would and could throw the bums out in the voting booth never has to. - Prefrontal Vortex
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” —Samuel Adams America: Israel's bitch
Support the troops. IOW, adopt the strategy that bled the dying Soviet empire dry. I wonder if we'll just kill Karzai instead, much as we did with the succession of presidents of South Vietnam back in the day. Karzai and his brother will probably flee with their loot skimmed from American aid and the heroin trade before it's too late.
It's a testament to the impotence of a pliant press and the magnitude and number of our other failures and scandals there that this thing just seemed to slip under the radar. A people that would and could throw the bums out in the voting booth never has to. - Prefrontal Vortex
Based on history your outlook is likely. Maybe Karzai can go back to being BP's chief lobbyist and bagman, his previous career. And perhaps his dear brother can continue to control the Afghan heroin supply chain from Monte Carlo.
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
The Associated Press analyzed Karzai's demand to remove U.S. troops from rural Afghanistan thus:
Kabul : Afghanistan | Sep 08, 2009 at 10:26 AM PDT BY candygirl
#3. To: randge (#2)
#4. To: randge (#2)
Whistleblower Says Bosses Required Sex Acts for Guards Seeking Best shift, Promotion
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
#5. To: tom007 (#0)
Karzai, for his part, is now demanding that U.S. troops get out -- now -- of Afghan rural areas and stay on their bases, likely in response to the butchering of 16 civilians by a U.S. military member in Kandahar.
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#3)
What the ...
#7. To: TooConservative (#5)
Karzai and his brother will probably flee with their loot skimmed from American aid and the heroin trade before it's too late.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
#8. To: tom007 (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest