Re: Of Paradise And Power Re: Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Agencies
Posted: Dec 02, 2009 at 1627 hrs IST
New Delhi Welcoming United States' extended commitments in
Afghanistan, India said on Wednesday that it was not "complaining"
about not finding a mention in President Barack Obama's Af-Pak policy
speech and was "pleased" that military pressure on Taliban will not be
eased there.
"India is not complaining at all," Minister of State for External
Affairs Shashi Tharoor told reporters when asked if India was feeling
'left out' on not being mentioned in Obama's speech.
"What you are overlooking is that our Prime Minister has just been
there. He received a pretty thorough exposition of the US' views on
the issue and President Obama called him up in Delhi yesterday to
brief him further before his public speech in the US," he added.
Pointing out that India has always maintained that it doesn't have a
direct involvement in Afghanistan, Tharoor said, "American
abbreviation for their policy is Af-Pak and I see India in neither of
those two abbreviations. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the focus of
this policy and focus of President Obama's speech."
Tharoor welcomed US' continued commitment in Afghanistan and said
India was "very pleased that pressure on Al-Qaeda and Taliban in
Afghanistan and on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border will not be
eased."
US has announced sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for
containing insurgency and securing key population centres there.
Tharoor said that continued military pressure on Taliban and Al-Qaeda
was an extremely important security component of the challenges faced
by Afghanistan.
Refusing to comment on details of the US President's speech, Tharoor
said, "It (Af-Pak policy) is the overall approach of continued
engagement and focus on dealing with the every real security dangers
faced by Afghanistan."
Tharoor said India believed that entire international community has a
stake in continued stability of Afghanistan and success of the Hamid
Karzai government in establishing his authority through out the
country.
He added that India was making contribution in Afghanistan in a
different way by building roads, hospitals, clinics and laying down
power supply lines there.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Obama-AfPak-speech-snub-India-says-not-complaining/549039/
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
By HEIDI VOGT and DENIS GRAY, Associated Press Writer Heidi Vogt And
Denis Gray, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 34 mins ago
KABUL – The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that the
Afghan government and its international partners should use the coming
18 months to convince the Taliban they can't win and offer militants a
way to quit the insurgency "with dignity."
Gen. Stanley McChrystal made the call after President Barack Obama
announced he was sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to the unpopular war.
If conditions are right, Obama said American troops could begin
leaving Afghanistan in 18 months.
The Afghan government welcomed Obama's announcement but cautioned
against setting a deadline for handing over security to Afghan forces
and starting to withdraw.
In a statement, the Taliban said Obama's plan was "no solution for the
problems of Afghanistan" and would give the insurgents an opportunity
"to increase their attacks and shake the American economy which is
already facing crisis."
Reaction among Afghans and U.S. soldiers was mixed, with many
wondering whether the Afghan government can meet the challenges of
fighting both corruption and the insurgents and whether the surge
means more Afghan civilians will die.
"I am asking America `What did you do for the last eight years against
your enemies? You have killed Afghans and your enemies have killed
Afghans. It seems you are weak and the enemy is strong. Will you
defeat the enemy this time?" said Haji Anwar Khan, a white-bearded
resident of Kandahar in Afghanistan's violent south.
Shortly after Obama's speech, McChrystal told reporters the 18-month
timetable was enough time to build up Afghan forces and convince the
people of this war-ravaged country that they can eventually take care
of their own security.
He said the Afghan government and the coalition should also use that
period "to convince the Taliban and the people from whom they recruit
that they cannot win — that there is not a way for the insurgency to
win militarily."
At the same time, he said the U.S. should support the Afghan
government in a reintegration program to allow insurgents a way to
return to society.
"I think they should be faced with the option to come back if they are
willing to come back under the constitution of Afghanistan — that they
can come back with dignity," he said. "If you look at the end of most
civil wars and insurgencies, I think that everybody needs a chance to
come back with dignity and respect and rejoin society. I think that
will be important for us to look forward to."
McChrystal said he met Wednesday with President Hamid Karzai for
nearly an hour and described the Afghan leader's reaction as "really
positive."
"The president was very upbeat, very resolute this morning," he said.
"I really believe that everybody's got a focus now that's sharper than
it was 24 hours ago."
But Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said 18 month timeframe was too
short for a complete handoff from international forces.
"That kind of time frame will give us momentum," Atmar said. "We are
hoping that there will be clarity in terms of long-term growth needs
of the Afghan national security forces and what can be achieved in 18
months."
In neighboring Pakistan, Obama's speech drew a lukewarm reaction. Key
al-Qaida leaders including Osama bin Laden are believed to have taken
refuge in Pakistan, and Obama's announcement of a tentative date to
begin withdrawing U.S. troops could deter Pakistan from cracking down
on Taliban fighters using Pakistani territory as a safe haven.
"The Americans would like to keep the pressure on the Pakistan army to
chase the militants all over the tribal regions, but Pakistan of
course has to see whether it's feasible," said Dr. Riffat Hussain, a
professor of Defense Studies at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad.
"It seems Pakistan prefers the incremental approach."
In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he
expects the allies to boost the NATO-led force by more than 5,000
soldiers. He said the best way to overcome widespread public
opposition to the war in Europe is by demonstrating progress on the
battlefield.
Capt. Mark Reel from Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. military civil affairs
officer deployed in Wardak province, west of Kabul, said more troops
mean nothing unless they can give local Afghans a sense of perceived
security.
"They have to believe they are more secure. You get thousands of
troops on some of these bases here, but what are they really doing?
The troops just have to get out there (in the field)." The reason the
surge worked in Iraq, he said, is because troops were able to get into
the field and make Iraqis feel safer.
More than 850 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department. Of
those, the military reports nearly 660 were killed by hostile action.
NATO reported that the latest member of the U.S. forces to die was
killed in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday when his patrol was attacked
by insurgents.
Davood Moradian, senior adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, welcomed Obama's statement but cautioned against comparing
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We are very pleased and support President Obama's analysis that
Afghanistan is not Vietnam. But I think Afghanistan is not Iraq.
Therefore, we have to be very careful about that," he said.
Ghulam Haider Hamidi, the mayor of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan
where a large chunk of the new U.S. forces will be deployed, cited
corruption — which Karzai has pledged to fight — as the worst problem
facing his nation.
"The biggest problem is corruption in the Afghan government, police
and military but also in some of the companies coming from the United
States, Canada and England and Germany," Hamidi said. "There is
corruption and drug dealing by the people who are in power, within the
police and the military."
Hamidi said just last month he was told that Taliban were sleeping in
the police barracks.
"The police are taking money from both sides — the government and the
Taliban," he said. "When we have this kind of police and military, the
Afghan problem won't be solved in 20 years."
He also said that safe havens next door in Pakistan have to be shut
down if Afghanistan's insurgency is to be curbed. On Wednesday, a
suicide attacker struck Pakistan's naval headquarters in Islamabad,
the capital of Pakistan, which has been hit with a series of bombings
in recent months by Islamist militants.
"More American troops will mean more violence," said Pakistani
engineering student Ammar Ahmed, 20. "It will worsen the situation
both in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Associated Press Writers Deb Riechmann, Sebastian Abbott and Rahim
Faiez in Kabul, Chris Brummitt in Islamabad, Darlene Superville and
Steven Hurst in West Point, N.Y. contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
chhotemianinshallah
By ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Anne
Flaherty And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 1 min ago
WASHINGTON – Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of
the country and "have severe consequences for the United States and
the world," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday as the Obama
administration set out to sell its new strategy on Capitol Hill.
Lawmakers questioned the exit strategy, a day after Obama announced he
was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to the Afghan war and
would commence troop withdrawals by the summer of 2011.
"Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not
most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war," Defense
Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a
sanctuary for al-Qaida as well as a staging area for resurgent
militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan."
The insurgency already has gained "dominant influence" in 11 of
Afghanistan's 34 provinces, said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Adm. Mike Mullen, who appeared with Gates and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton before the committee.
Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin expressed serious misgivings about
the troop escalation when the Afghan security force remains small and
weak.
"It seems to me that the large influx of U.S. combat troops will put
more U.S. Marines on street corners in Afghan villages, with too few
Afghan partners alongside them," he said in his opening remarks of the
hearing.
Despite the war's waning popularity among voters, there were few
protesters on hand as Gates, Mullen and Clinton testified in a
cavernous hearing room. Unlike 2007, when the Bush administration's
troop build up in Iraq prompted angry chants by protesters, there were
only three visible members of the famed "Code Pink" anti-war group.
They held up signs denouncing the troop buildup and calling the war
hopeless.
Vice President Joe Biden said earlier Wednesday that the new surge-and-
exit troop strategy in Afghanistan is aimed more at wringing reforms
from President Hamid Karzai than mollifying a war-weary American
public. He said the principal aim of the new policy is to protect the
United States from further terrorist attack while also keeping the
Taliban from overrunning the country.
Democrats complained about Obama's escalation of the 8-year-old war
after his prime-time speech Tuesday night at West Point, N.Y.
Republicans are unhappy with his promise to withdraw troops in 18
months, but Congress appears willing, nevertheless, to approve the
buildup's $30 billion price tag.
Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama in last year's presidential
election, reiterated Wednesday that while he supports the president's
build up, he believes it's a mistake to signal in advance when a troop
withdrawal might begin. Obama said in his prime-time West Point speech
Tuesday that it could commence as early as July 2011.
The Arizona Republican said: "We don't want to sound an uncertain
trumpet to our friends in the region."
McCain asked Gates if the U.S. would withdraw troops based on "an
arbitrary date."
Gates replied "I think it's the judgment of all of us ... that we
would be in a position particularly in uncontested areas where we
would be able to begin that transition."
But he said the July 2011 date was chosen because it was two years
after the Marines went into Helmand province in a new push last
summer. The secretary said he thought the United States would be in a
position by December 2010 to determine whether it could begin a
withdrawal by July 2011.
Gates called the region the "epicenter of extremist jihadism,"
reminding lawmakers that local and foreign Muslims had joined before —
in defeating the former Soviet Union. "For them to be seen to defeat
the sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe
consequences for the United States and the world," Gates said.
Congress was using the high-profile hearings to express its
misgivings. Obama's escalation strategy won quick backing from NATO
allies. Afghan leaders praised the speech, but also had questions
about the 18-month timetable for withdrawal.
And a Taliban spokesman said Wednesday that Obama's plan was "no
solution" to Afghanistan's troubles.
Obama pledged Tuesday night to an audience of Army cadets at the U.S.
Military Academy that the shift from surge to exit strategy would
depend on the military situation in Afghanistan.
"We will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account
conditions on the ground," Obama said, declaring that the nation's
security was at stake and that the additional troops were needed to
"bring this war to a successful conclusion."
The planned infusion of 30,000 U.S. troops would raise the total
American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000.
Many Democrats said they weren't convinced that sending more troops
would hasten an end to the war. They also question whether the money
used for troop deployments will drain resources from other domestic
priorities, like health care and job creation.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., called the plan "an expensive gamble to
undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of
questionable legitimacy."
After meeting Wednesday with Karzai, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal
called Karzai's reaction to the new U.S. strategy "really positive.
The president was very upbeat, very resolute this morning."
McChrystal, Obama's field commander in Afghanistan, said U.S. and NATO
forces would hand over responsibility for the fight against the
Taliban to Afghan security forces "as rapidly as conditions allow."
Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, who also met with McChrystal,
sought more details about how the Afghan security forces would be
trained and expanded in the next 18 months — a time frame that he said
was too short for a complete handoff from international forces.
"That kind of time frame will give us momentum," Atmar said. "We are
hoping that there will be clarity in terms of long-term growth needs
of the Afghan national security forces and what can be achieved in 18
months."
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he expected the
allies to bolster the American buildup with more than 5,000 additional
troops. He said the best way to overcome widespread public opposition
in Europe is by demonstrating progress, starting by transferring
control of parts of the country to the Afghan government.
"Albania will respond positively to such a commitment and for sure
that we will send additional troops again," Albanian Foreign Minister
Ilir Meta said, without specifying how many extra troops his country
might send. Albania currently has 250 troops in Afghanistan.
At a meeting of foreign ministers in Athens, Greece, U.S. Deputy
Secretary of State James Steinberg said: "Some countries are ready now
to make commitments to provide additional troops or additional funds,
some are now just examining it. We understand that they need a little
bit of time to digest exactly what the president's proposed."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed Obama's speech as "courageous,
determined and lucid" but stopped short of pledging additional French
troops.
Associated Press writers Slobodan Lekic in Brussels, Heidi Vogt in
Kabul and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.
chhotemianinshallah
By DENIS GRAY, Associated Press Writer Denis Gray, Associated Press
Writer – 58 mins ago
FORWARD OPERATING BASE AIRBORNE, Afghanistan – U.S. service members in
Afghanistan said Wednesday that President Barack Obama's decision to
send 30,000 more troops offered hope that they can go home — if the
reinforcements can build up the Afghan army to protect civilians
against the Taliban.
The troops at this base in Wardak province, west of Kabul, learned of
Obama's decision while watching TV clips of his speech during their
breakfast of sausage, eggs, hash browns, fruit and cereal. Obama said
that if conditions permit, the troops could begin coming home in 18
months.
"Really, I'm truly happy," said Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip M.
Hauser, an explosives demolition expert from Salina, Kansas, who is on
his fourth tour of Afghanistan and Iraq. "As soon as the Afghans can
do it on their own without our help, we can go home."
Hauser said the Afghans were inexperienced — but he didn't question
their determination.
"They charge in and start pulling the wires" on the explosives, Hauser
said. "It's not the safest way to do things, but these guys have the
guts."
Sgt. Maj. Andrew Spano of Northboro, Massachusetts, deployed with the
2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division,
wondered whether to bank on the beginnings of a U.S. pullout in 18
months.
"Obama talking to the American people and the world shows that we have
much greater direction," he said. "The train has been going down the
track for some time, but this just gives us more guidelines."
But Spano appeared skeptical whether Afghan forces would be ready in
18 months — a fear echoed by a number of Afghan officials who believed
the timeline was too short. Asked about the 18-month timeframe, Spano
asked: "What does it really mean?"
Capt. Mark Reel from Norfolk, Virginia, a civil affairs officer, said
more troops mean nothing unless they can give local Afghans a sense of
perceived security.
"They have to believe they are more secure. You get thousands of
troops on some of these bases here, but what are they really doing?
The troops just have to get out there."
The reason the surge worked in Iraq, he said, is because troops were
able to get into the field and make Iraqis feel safer.
"The additional forces will allow us to partner with even more units
of the Afghan army and police and deliver even more relationships with
those local influential leaders who may be sitting on the fence," said
Col. David Haight, commander of Task Force Spartan, which has about
4,000 troops in Wardak and Logar provinces.
In the United States, battle-weary troops and their families braced
for a wrenching round of new deployments to Afghanistan, but many said
they support the surge as long as it helps to end the 8-year-old
conflict.
Marines and their families interviewed by The Associated Press in
Jacksonville, North Carolina, near Camp Lejeune, felt a mix of fresh
concerns and renewed hopes. The Marine Corps base could supply some of
the first surge units by Christmas.
"All I ask that man to do, if he is going to send them over there, is
not send them over in vain," said 57-year-old Bill Thomas of
Jacksonville, who watched Obama's speech in his living room, where
photos of his three sons in uniform hang over the TV.
One of his sons, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Thomas, is a Marine based at
Camp Lejeune. He'll deploy next year to Afghanistan.
An ex-Marine himself, Thomas said he supports Obama's surge strategy.
But he shook his head when the president announced a 2011 transition
date to begin pulling out troops.
"If I were the enemy, I would hang back until 2011," Thomas said. "We
have to make sure that we are going go stay until the job is done. It
ain't going to be as easy as he thinks it is."
The idea behind Obama's troop buildup is to provide enough extra
security for a period of time to give the Afghans a chance to build up
their government and security forces. Asked how the U.S. and
international forces will prevent another resurgence of militant
violence once the foreign forces leave, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the
top U.S. commander in the country, said that insurgents can't afford
to leave the battlefield while the ranks of trained Afghan forces
swell.
"It makes it much more difficult for the returning insurgents to
contest that," McChrystal said.
Military officials say the Army brigades most likely to be sent as
part of the surge will come from Fort Drum in New York and Fort
Campbell in Kentucky. Marines, who will be the vanguard, will most
likely come primarily from Camp Lejeune.
As the wife of a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, Jamie Copeland said
she wished the war "would be over and done with."
Copeland's husband, Sgt. Doug Copeland, is already scheduled to return
to Afghanistan later this fall. She hates to see him go — he just
returned from his last seven-month tour in August — and miss more time
with their 1-year-old son. But she also conceded that American forces
need more help fighting Taliban insurgents.
"We need to be in Afghanistan," said Copeland, 24. "Our Marines are
getting slaughtered out there. I would say we need more out there.
Iraq is done."
At the John Hoover Inn, a bar in Evans Mills, N.Y., near Fort Drum, a
dozen soldiers watched the speech on a large-screen TV, drinking beer
out of red cups. When Obama announced the troop increase, only one
cheered, and the rest remained silent. They continued to play darts
while the president was speaking.
"I'm just relieved to know where we're going," said Spc. Adam Candee,
29, of Chicago.
Theresa McCleod said she worries what Obama's plans might mean for her
husband, a soldier in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. She
said he's already done a long combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq,
leaving her to care for their three children.
"First he was supposed to be pulling everyone out, and now all the
sudden he's throwing everybody back into Afghanistan and it's like
nobody can really make up their minds," McCleod said of Obama.
Associated Press Writer Kevin Maurer reported from Jacksonville, N.C.
Ted Shaffrey at Fort Drum, N.Y., Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga. and
Kristin Hall in Clarksville, Tenn., contributed to this story.
bademiyansubhanallah
By CARLOTTA GALL
Published: December 2, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan — For Afghans, the change in tone was unmistakable.
Unlike Bush-era speeches pledging unending support, President Obama
suddenly introduced a timeline and a period of 18 months before the
start of a drawdown of troops.
The timetable set off alarm here and may have already succeeded in Mr.
Obama’s goal of focusing Afghans’ attention. It was the subject of
television discussions and journalists’ questions to the American
ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, as well as to Gen. Stanley McChrystal,
the commander of American forces here.
If Tuesday night was about President Obama sending a message to the
American public that the war in Afghanistan would not be open-ended,
then Wednesday in Kabul was about reassuring the Afghans of America’s
long-term commitment.
To underscore that, Mr. Eikenberry signed an agreement with the Afghan
foreign minister, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, at a ceremony to open the
first United States consulate in Afghanistan in the northern city of
Mazar-i-Sharif, with another planned in the city of Herat.
“I want to emphasize that we have a very comprehensive approach and a
long-term friendship and partnership with Afghanistan,” Mr. Eikenberry
said. President Obama discussed further assistance in energy, water
management, mines, agriculture and improvement of the civil service in
his video conference call on Tuesday with President Hamid Karzai, he
added.
He explained to the mostly Afghan journalists gathered that when the
drawdown begins in 18 months, the number of troops on the ground would
be as much as 35,000 more than at present and the Afghan forces
stronger.
Mr. Spanta said he was reassured in an hourlong call on Tuesday with
his counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. But he
admitted that the 18-month timeline for the start of a transition to
Afghan authority had served something of a shock therapy to the Afghan
government.
“Can we do it?” he said. “That is the main question. This is not done
in a moment, it is a process. They have to have strategic patience
with us.”
In a clear sign of his government’s uneasiness at the flagging
American enthusiasm for the Afghan war, Mr. Spanta said he had just
presented a proposal to Mr. Karzai to work out a new strategic
partnership with the United States to secure the kind of predictable,
long-term assistance that close American allies Israel and Egypt
enjoy.
All parties involved agreed that a great deal of the job ahead was
about managing perceptions.
“We have to manage the public,” said a senior Afghan government aide,
speaking anonymously so he could talk more freely.
President Obama was very much speaking to the American public in his
speech, he said. American military officials had assured them that the
18-month timeline was more for the American public opinion than any
unmovable deadline for the Afghans.
The Afghans had to persuade their own public, the aide said. “Our own
problem is that people have a war-torn mentality; they will side with
the winner and we have to show them that the Afghan government can be
the winner,” he said.
The Taliban jumped in with their own draft of reality. President Obama
was ignoring the interests of his own people, who were suffering an
economic downturn, the group said in an e-mail. “It clearly indicates
that the United States has broad, long-term, brazen plans not only for
Afghanistan but also for the region,” said the statement, bearing the
heading of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan.
The Taliban are prepared for a long and patient resistance against the
increase of American troops, the statement said, warning that sending
more troops will only lead to more casualties for NATO and American
troops and cause more Afghan civilian casualties.
For Mr. Karzai, who is under exceptionally strong pressure to choose a
clean and competent cabinet, and to move decisively to combat
corruption, the speech itself was not overly harsh. “Tough love,” one
aide called it. Far stronger words are being used in private to push
for reforms and the appointment of effective minister and officials,
one Western official said.
One idea that has raised concern in the Karzai government was a plan
to bypass the central government and give direct assistance to
effective regional governors and ministers, and Mr. Spanta soundly
rejected the idea.
Mr. Karzai, who has been smarting ever since he was forced to accept
that he did not win the presidential election outright, avoided any
comment on the president’s speech.
A statement from the presidential palace stated only that the
government welcomed President Obama’s new strategy for the support it
offered in development and training for Afghan institutions and in
protecting the Afghan people, and commended it for the recognition
that terrorists were operating in the region beyond Afghanistan’s
borders in Pakistan.
“Afghanistan will spare no effort in achieving the above objectives,”
it said.
Mr. Spanta was the only minister who commented on the speech. He
praised Mr. Obama’s comments pinpointing that Afghanistan suffered
from extremist safe havens in Pakistan, the first time an American
president had stated it so publicly that the center of terrorism was
across the border in Pakistan, Mr. Spanta said. “This is the first
time we heard that from the president,” he said. “It is a tremendous
change and progress.”
But for some it was not enough. “Faced with a surge the Taliban will
go to Pakistan,” said Nader Khan Kutawaisi, a member of Parliament
from Paktika province, which borders Pakistan’s tribal areas. “It is
better to concentrate on their safe havens. As everyone knows they
have a big headquarters in Quetta and shadow governors living there
and I know people went to congratulate one governor for Id,” he said,
referring to Id al-Adha, the Muslim holiday celebrated last week.
Yet generally Afghan officials have commended the new strategy — much
of which has already been in place since General McChrystal took
command for six months — to lower civilian casualties, protect the
Afghan people, train more Afghan forces and hand over more
responsibility to them.
In particular those officials pitted on the front line against the
Taliban insurgents, said a rapid surge of 30,000 troops this winter
was desperately needed, since Afghan forces could not fight off the
current insurgency on their own.
“It’s a very good idea,” said a senior security official who has been
in the forefront of tracking Al Qaeda and Taliban since 2001. The
United States had very good human intelligence on Taliban on both
sides of the border in Afghanistan and Pakistan but they did not have
enough good fighters in the Afghan army and police, he said.
“They need the Americans,” he said. A surge of extra forces could
undercut the insurgency in six months since many of the Taliban were
ready to negotiate and could be persuaded to swap sides with a
concerted effort, he said.
In Kabul, an increase in troops was generally seen as a gesture of
welcome strength. Yet in the south, where the civilian cost has been
highest and there is a deep weariness of the war, the mood has been
generally against an increase in troops since many fear it would only
increase the civilian cost. The test would be in how the extra troops
perform, one government official said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03pstan.html?_r=1
bademiyansubhanallah
By Sara A. Carter
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan | When nearly 60 tribal leaders gathered in a
Taliban stronghold here recently to discuss mounting security
challenges, U.S. military commanders and staff listened attentively,
but there were no representatives from Afghan security forces.
"What government do we have?" asked Mohammed Nabi, a malik, or tribal
leader, from the Kandahar region who acknowledged he was a Taliban
sympathizer. "The only faces I see here are men from another country
wearing uniforms like the Russians. We are left to fend for ourselves,
protect ourselves, and there is no one here from Kabul who cares."
President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan relies heavily on
increasing the quality and quantity of Afghanistan's army and police.
But eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban, the nearly 120,000-
member Afghan National Security Forces remains a work in progress.
Some U.S. troops are skeptical that the locals will ever be able to
step up and defend the Afghan people by themselves.
• Afghanistan: Click to view chart of invasions (from 1500 B.C. to
2009), and breakdowns of ethnicity and religion.
During October, when a record 59 American troops were killed in
Afghanistan, a reporter and photographer for The Washington Times
visited southern Afghanistan and found no Afghan army units fighting
alongside or otherwise aiding U.S. troops in the Maywand or Arghandab
Valley regions. On several occasions, the Afghan army and police
failed to show, forcing missions to be postponed because the Americans
are required to have Afghan escorts before entering Afghan homes.
Some Afghan army personnel were observed training, however, at
Kandahar airfield.
"Where are they?" asked a U.S. military official who spoke on the
condition that he not be named because of the political sensitivity of
the subject. "Were out here fighting, and there isnt one Afghan face
in the mix fighting alongside us. All the Afghan people see is our
face, and that doesnt give them much hope that their government is
behind them in this fight. We need to put their face at the
forefront."
• TEXT: President Obama's speech at West Point.
Army Spc. Brock McIntosh, an Illinois National Guard reservist who
returned to the U.S. in August from a 10-month deployment in eastern
Afghanistan, said that Afghan forces, even when they arrived, often
"would just be following behind without actively participating" in
missions.
"It's important to have their face, the Afghan army face, in the
fight," he said. "It's supposed to be their country, and the people
need to see that. At the same time, we have a problem. I don't think
American troops will ever fully trust them or that they will ever
fully trust us. That's been a major problem."
Occasional incidents in which Afghan soldiers or men wearing Afghan
army uniforms have attacked U.S. and allied forces have not helped
build that trust.
Col. Bjarne Michael Iverson, a former top aide to Central Command head
Gen. David H. Petraeus, acknowledged the challenge of training the
Afghans sufficiently to provide the exit strategy that Mr. Obama
described in his speech Tuesday night.
"It's going to be complex and difficult, and it's going to take time,"
said Col. Iverson, who is currently the Army fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York.
While Afghans "are known as good fighters," he said, "what they don't
have is the structures you typically find in a military, such as
battalions and command-and-control systems."
In addition, the majority of the recruits are illiterate.
Asked whether it would be necessary to teach the Afghan troops how to
read and write, Col. Iverson said they first need to "learn how to
follow orders [and be] confident in their leaders. You start by
teaching them the basics."
Anthony Cordesman and Adam Mausner of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington wrote in a recent report about
some improvements in training but said the Afghan army was still not
capable of holding ground reclaimed from the Taliban.
"The key to success," they wrote, "is not the quality of the training
in training centers but the quality of partnering, mentoring, support
and enablers once a unit enters service."
They recommended that U.S. brigade combat teams be embedded "in each
echelon of each [Afghan army] corps ... to provide the expertise and
enablers to carry out joint planning, intelligence, command-and-
control capabilities, fire support [and] logistic expertise."
Lt. Col. Jeffery French, a battalion commander in the 5th Stryker
Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based at Forward Operating Base
Ramrod, told The Times that his battalion is working consistently with
the Afghan army and police "through individual training [and]
collective training, but combined operations are what we need."
"It's a very thinking enemy that adapts quickly to change," he said.
"They aren't just a bunch of knuckleheads. What we need here is a
consistent effort from the Afghan government as well. A strong
presence of Afghan security forces in the region would be beneficial
to the mission. We're here, and that's important as well. What we need
is constant engagement and persistent security that includes the
Afghans."
A senior Pentagon official, who spoke on the condition that he not be
named, said that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of the U.S.-
led forces in Afghanistan, is focusing on the need to "partner with
the Afghan National Army and its commanders. Were all aware that there
needs to be more focus on this and getting the Afghan people to see
that their government is providing security for them as well.
Otherwise, we may not be successful in stabilizing the country or
stopping the extremists."
Spc. McIntosh expressed doubt that Afghan security forces will be able
to perform as the U.S. hopes in the foreseeable future.
"We have been in Afghanistan for eight years already," he said.
"There's what, a little more than 100,000 [Afghan National Security
Forces] members, and almost all still lack training and don't do much.
We cant get 100,000 to fight like us in eight years and now were going
to get 400,000 to fight like us in less time than that? I just don't
think its going to happen.
"We think by putting more money and more troops is going to help," he
said. "I don't believe that's going to help at all."
Barbara Slavin contributed to this report from Washington.
Bulldog6
Lt. Col. Jeffery French, commander of the 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd
Infantry Division, based at Forward Operating Base Ramrod, told The
Times that his battalion is working consistently with the Afghan army
and police "through individual training [and] collective training, but
combined operations are what we need." Come on, WT, do your homework.
LTC French does not command the brigade, he commands one of the
subordinate battalions. Why is it so difficult after years of conflict
to get this right? Colonels command brigades while Lieutenant Colonels
command battalions!
murungu
Funny how the Afghans and the Iraqi's(and all Arabs) are hopeless
soldiers, but make first-class terrorists. As terrorist they can fight
to win while the US and its allies are forced to fight by 'the rules'.
family_values
All you whining, complaining, obstructing and sour grapes Republicans
out there: JOIN THE MARINES TODAY! Do something other than cry like
girly-men, JOIN THE MARINES TODAY and put your actions where you mouth
is TODAY!Mark as offensive
SULLY
RE: <<Lt. Col. Jeffery French, a battalion commander in the 5th
Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division>>
SULLY
RE:<<As terrorist they can fight to win while the US and its allies
are forced to fight by 'the rules'.>> what other way is there without
becoming a terrorist? Besides, the notion that Afghans are poor
soldiers. There are a lot of reasons why indigenous people we train
make up poor performing military organizations.
collardgreens1
This article sounds like the real world to me, as opposed to the
fantasies dreamed up by the politicians in Washington to facilitate
their political agendas.
Skepticus
Hey, "family values", unless you are posting your tripe from the
Middle East, you are here stateside like the rest of us. Why do you
want others to go join the military while you fail to do so? You are a
typical, disgusting liberal.
vocus1
Congratulations to the WT for telling the story as it is. How can our
politicians or our commanders do the right thing if they don't know
the truth - or hide underneath the sheets hoping the truth will go
away. The hog wash coming out of DC and the Administration is an
embarrassment. I guess they expect us to swallow their lies. No more.
Chicochip
To " Family Values", as a conservative with an 18 year old son in the
Army facing deployment and having spent six years in the Naval
submarine service myself, I would love to enlist and spare the younger
people. But I am considered too old for service now at 50. I am sure
there are a lot of other people my age that would volunteer to go if
it would spare the younger people. Can you tell the rest of us what
you have ever done?
Jaeger
If this article accurately summarizes the state of the Afghan
military, it seems absurdly optimistic to think that their military
will be ready to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda by 2011, Pres. Obama's
pullout date for our military.
soxconn
Just one more case of this administration ignoring the tea party'ers,
only in this case these are citizens that cannot dissent. I think
Chris Matthews relatively called them teabaggers when he said that
Obama was talking in the enemies camp.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/us-troops-skeptical-of-afghan-abilities/?page=2
bademiyansubhanallah
Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Obama's Decision to Send More Troops to
Afghanistan
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET!
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Continuing with our lead story, the president's
speech on Afghanistan. Joining us from Washington, Congressman Dennis
Kucinich.
You know what I don't get about you lefties? Here's what I don't get.
OK. You know, and you're a smart guy, you know we pull out of
Afghanistan, which you have suggested doing, Taliban comes back in.
And they're going to run the country again. That means the Afghan
people are going to be brutalized again, particularly the women. There
are going to be reprisals and executions. Al Qaeda comes back. The
training camps are reinstituted. They cause trouble all over the
world. You know all of that will happen, and yet you still say get
out. How do you justify it?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, first of all, when you say "you
liberals," frankly, Bill, with all respect, I think that your level of
analysis, left-right, is misplaced here. When you have the Cato
Institute, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Dinckel (ph) and other conservatives
who are Republicans, who are conservative or even libertarian...
O'REILLY: But they have different views on it though...
KUCINICH: ...challenging this war, then I think that what we're
looking at is a new coalition here which basically throws the idea of
left and right out the window. The Taliban has gained strength through
the occupation. And that's — so if we're going to double-down and send
in more troops, they're only going to become stronger. We don't get
that the people reject a rough central government. We don't get that
the efforts to train an Afghan army have been unproductive, and our
efforts along the border with Pakistan have resulted in destabilizing
Pakistan.
Click here to watch the debate!
O'REILLY: OK. I got all that, and we'll take them one by one. And
you're right on some of them. But the central theme is if you pull us
out, United States comes out, NATO comes in, the Taliban comes in. And
you seem to be willing to live with that.
KUCINICH: Well, it doesn't mean that we don't have a strategy to deal
with an exit.
O'REILLY: Well, what would that be? What would that be to prevent the
Taliban from coming back?
KUCINICH: I subscribe to what the Cato Institute's been talking about,
and they said you have to — you have to maintain an advisory role.
O'REILLY: They advised the Taliban not to come back?
KUCINICH: No.
O'REILLY: Come on. Come on. Be — get in the real world here. They're
going to come back.
KUCINICH: Don't put words in my mouth there. Don't put words in my
mouth.
O'REILLY: Come on.
KUCINICH: The Taliban are going to have to be dealt with. You're going
to have to...
O'REILLY: How?
KUCINICH: Believe it or not, you're going to have to negotiate with
the Taliban at some point. Mark this — this interview, Bill, because
we are not going to be able to dislodge the Taliban through an
occupation. The Loya Jirga process...
O'REILLY: What makes you think you could negotiate with them if they
think they're going to win? Why would they negotiate with you? For
what reason?
KUCINICH: Well, our presence, our presence there right now is — is
certainly running up a toll on the Taliban. But they're not going to
leave, because they're gaining strength through the occupation. But
the people...
O'REILLY: I think you could break their back.
KUCINICH: The people in Afghanistan who support the Taliban don't like
the Taliban, Bill. They don't want the Taliban there.
O'REILLY: No, the folks don't like them, but they are so brutal. They
are so brutal.
KUCINICH: We have an agreement. Bill, let's start — we have something
to agree on. The process of decision making in Afghanistan
historically has been something called the Loya Jirga. It's councils
operating at a town and a local level. Well, that decision-making
process was basically usurped by the Taliban. Once the Taliban has to
deal with the people of Afghanistan directly they're not going to be
able to hold power as they do...
O'REILLY: Well, how did they did it the first time around? They held
power for many years after the Russians were defeated. Look, I
understand. I don't like this war. I don't think most of my viewers
like the war. It's a backwater; it's corrupt. You've got narcotics all
over the place.
KUCINICH: Then why would you want us to stay there?
O'REILLY: Because the alternative is worse. It was almost like Iraq.
KUCINICH: How?
O'REILLY: The alternative to losing Iraq was worse, and we finally
pulled it out of the fire. The alternative is worse.
KUCINICH: What did we pull out of the fire? We killed a million people
and, you know, in a war that was based on a lie.
O'REILLY: Well, you basically don't have a defeat for the United
States in a terrorist sanctuary in Iraq. You don't have that. And
that's the same thing that's in play in Afghanistan. You pull out, you
have...
KUCINICH: You kill a million...
O'REILLY: ...you're going to have to go back in again. You pull out,
we're going to have to go back in again.
KUCINICH: Bill, we have a trillion dollars we've put on the line. We
have — 5,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives. Over a million Afghan
— Iraqis perished in Iraq. We are looking at a $3 to $6 trillion bill
in Afghanistan. What are we doing here? What are our priorities? Are
we going to be able to run the game around the world? I think there is
something to be said about nation building here at home, about
securing the homeland.
O'REILLY: OK, but you still don't answer the central question of the
threat...
KUCINICH: What is it?
O'REILLY: ...of the threat to the United States by a reinstituted
Taliban providing safe harbor for the al Qaeda. You don't answer. You
want to negotiate with them, you want to advise them. That's not going
to work.
KUCINICH: Listen, the Taliban — the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not the
same, Bill. You know that.
O'REILLY: No, but they — they're simpatico with hurting the West.
KUCINICH: ... are homegrown. There's a difference. And the difference
is this: a counterterrorism strategy can work. Counterinsurgency is
doomed to fail because the occupation fuels even more insurgents, and
it has people fighting against us who on another day might be for us.
We can't buy support there. We can't use the...
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: So what do you want? Special Forces in there? Is that what
you want to do? You want Special Forces to be in there?
KUCINICH: There are Special Forces there.
O'REILLY: I know, but…
KUCINICH: Are you kidding? The Special Forces are helping to pay off
the people in the perimeter of Kabul trying to get them to buy —
trying to buy friends for us. That never works.
O'REILLY: All right.
KUCINICH: You know, the same people…
O'REILLY: Now why do you think...
KUCINICH: Go ahead.
O'REILLY: If Obama is a liberal guy, and he is, why do you think...
KUCINICH: By whose assessment? Why do you keep going back to liberal-
conservative? It means nothing in these analyses.
O'REILLY: OK. All right. But this is the question. If Obama is a
liberal guy, and he is, he's a liberal thinker, why does he not see it
your way? What is the divide between you, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack
Obama?
KUCINICH: Well, he's the president and I'm a member of Congress.
Congress actually has the ultimately responsibility...
O'REILLY: I know, but he doesn't see the strategy the same way...
(CROSSTALK)
KUCINICH: ...under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to make the
decision. Pardon?
O'REILLY: Why does he see the strategy differently in the theater than
you do? Why isn't he on you r side?
KUCINICH: Listen, I respect his role as president. I like Barack
Obama. I listened to him tonight. I want him to be successful but I
emphatically disagree with him on a surge in Afghanistan. I think that
Congress has to have a separate approach to this. I don't think we
should fund this. I think we should fund bringing the troops home and
start...
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: But why does he disagree with you? That's the question.
KUCINICH: ...to secure our position in Afghanistan.
O'REILLY: Why you think he disagrees with you? He agrees more with me
than with you.
KUCINICH: You know what? To me this isn't even about the personality
of the president, whom I admire. It's about whether or not we're
taking the best move for America.
O'REILLY: So you don't know why he disagrees with you.
KUCINICH: There should be security without escalating the war.
O'REILLY: The answer is you don't know why he disagrees with you?
KUCINICH: No, my answer is that I'm not taking on the president of the
United States. That's not my role. My role is to say as a member of
Congress that we don't have to escalate, that we should bring our
troops home, that we should focus on creating jobs and health care and
retirement security and investment security, and saving people's
homes. That's nation building at home.
O'REILLY: All right.
KUCINICH: Nation building in Afghanistan? Are you kidding me?
O'REILLY: Remember, there's a lot of jobs in the military because
we're fighting all over the place.
KUCINICH: And you could get a lot more jobs with the money we're
spending. You can create a civilian life about 25 to one.
O'REILLY: All right, Congressman.
KUCINICH: $1 million to one job in the military.
O'REILLY: Always fun debating you. Thanks for coming on. We appreciate
it. Directly ahead...
KUCINICH: Bill, it's a privilege to be on your show.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578873,00.html
Sid Harth
By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2009 – NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen today welcomed President Barack Obama’s announcement of a
new U.S. Afghanistan strategy and said he expects the alliance and its
partners will make a “substantial increase” in their contributions.
“President Obama's decision to substantially increase the numbers of
U.S. forces in the NATO-led operation is proof of his resolve; the
overall approach he laid out is a broader political strategy for
success,” Rasmussen said. The United States' contribution to the NATO-
led mission has always been substantial; it is now even more
important.”
The secretary general noted that Afghanistan is not a U.S. mission
alone.
“America's allies in NATO have shared the risks, costs and burdens of
this mission from the beginning,” he said. “As the U.S. increases its
commitment, I am confident that the other allies, as well as our
partners in the mission, will also make a substantial increase in
their contribution.”
On the eve of the a two-day meeting of NATO foreign ministers that
begins tomorrow, Rasmussen called upon alliance members and partners
to follow the U.S. example and increase their commitments.
“In 2010, the non-U.S. members of this mission will send at least
5,000 more soldiers, and probably more,” the secretary general said at
a news conference in Brussels, Belgium. “At this very important
moment, NATO must demonstrate its unity and its strength once again.”
Rasmussen said he has pressed allies and partners to fully resource
NATO’s training mission in Afghanistan with a view toward helping to
foster the transition to Afghans taking the lead. He also emphasized
that the International Security Assistance Force mission would not end
until Afghans are capable of securing and running their country
themselves.
“Our strategy is very clear: to transfer lead responsibility for
running their own country to the Afghans, as soon as possible,” the
secretary general said. “But transition is not a code word for exit
strategy. It means transition to a more supporting role [for allies
and partners].”
Rasmussen added that more development assistance and a stepped-up
effort on the civilian side of the effort would “create a new momentum
in the mission in 2010.” At the upcoming foreign ministers meeting, he
noted, allies and partners will discuss not only the military
operation, but also the broader political strategy in Afghanistan,
which includes the promotion of good governance throughout the
country.
http://www.defenselink.mil//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56901
Sid Harth
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Room SD-106,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Wednesday, December
02, 2009
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
Thank you for inviting us to testify today. Last night, President
Obama announced a renewed commitment and more focused strategy for
Afghanistan and Pakistan. I would like to provide an overview of the
strategic thinking and context behind his decisions, in particular:
The nexus among Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Pakistan, and Afghanistan;
Our objectives and how the President’s strategy aims to accomplish
them; and
The military forces required.
As the president first stated in March, and re-emphasized
last night, the goal of the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan
is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and to prevent its
return to both countries. The international military effort to
stabilize Afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal.
Defeating Al Qaeda and enhancing Afghan security are mutually
reinforcing missions. They cannot be un-tethered from one another, as
much as we might wish that to be the case.
While Al Qaeda is under great pressure now and dependent on the
Taliban and other extremist groups for sustainment, the success of the
Taliban would vastly strengthen Al Qaeda’s message to the Muslim
world: that violent extremists are on the winning side of history.
Put simply, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have become symbiotic, each
benefiting from the success and mythology of the other. Al Qaeda
leaders have stated this explicitly and repeatedly.
Taliban success in re-taking and holding parts of Afghanistan against
the combined forces of multiple, modern armies – the current direction
of events – has dramatically strengthened the extremist mythology and
popular perceptions of who is winning and who is losing. The lesson of
the Taliban’s revival for Al Qaeda is that time and will are on their
side. That, with a Western defeat, they could regain their strength
and achieve a major strategic victory – as long as their senior
leadership lives and can continue to inspire and attract followers and
funding. Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not
sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of Al Qaeda.
At the same time, one cannot separate the security situation in
Afghanistan from the stability of Pakistan – a nuclear-armed nation of
175 million people now also explicitly targeted by Islamic extremists.
The two countries, bound by ties of tribe and faith, share a porous
border of more than 1,500 miles. Giving extremists breathing room in
Pakistan led to the resurgence of the Taliban and more coordinated,
sophisticated attacks in Afghanistan. Providing a sanctuary for
extremists in southern and eastern Afghanistan would put yet more
pressure on a Pakistani government already under attack from groups
operating in the border region. Indeed, the Pakistan Taliban, just in
the last year or so, has become a real threat to Pakistan’s own
domestic peace and stability, carrying out – with Al Qaeda’s help –
escalating bombing attacks throughout the country. It is these
attacks, and the Taliban’s movement toward Islamabad seven months ago,
that largely motivated the current operations by the Pakistani army.
And we know the Pakistan Taliban operate in collusion with both the
Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.
A related point with respect to Pakistan: Because of American
withdrawal from the region in the early 1990s, followed by a severing
of military-to-military relations, many Pakistanis are skeptical that
the United States is a reliable, long-term strategic partner. We must
change that perception.
Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not
most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war. Taliban-ruled
areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for Al
Qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the
offensive in Pakistan.
Success in South and Central Asia by Islamic extremists – as was the
case 20 years ago – would beget success on other fronts. It would
strengthen the Al Qaeda narrative, providing renewed opportunities for
recruitment, fund-raising, and more sophisticated operations. Aided by
the Internet, many more followers could join their ranks, both in the
region and in susceptible populations across the globe.
It is true that Al Qaeda and its followers can plot and execute
attacks from a variety of locations – from Munich to London to Denver.
But what makes the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan
uniquely different from any other location – including Somalia, Yemen,
and other possible redoubts – is that this part of the world
represents the epicenter of extremist jihadism: the historic place
where native and foreign Muslims defeated one superpower and, in their
view, caused its collapse at home. For them to be seen to defeat the
sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe
consequences for the United States and the world.
Some say this is similar to the “domino theory” that underpinned and
ultimately muddied the thinking behind the U.S. military escalation in
Vietnam. The difference, however, is that we have very real – and very
recent – history that shows just what can happen in this part of the
world when extremists have breathing space, safe havens, and
governments complicit with and supportive of their mission. Less than
five years after the last Soviet tank crossed the Termez Bridge out of
Afghanistan, in 1993 Islamic militants launched their first attack on
the World Trade Center in New York. We cannot afford to make a similar
mistake again.
A stable security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan –
one that is sustainable over the long term by their governments – is
vital to our national security. By the same token, the current status
quo in Afghanistan – the slow but steady deterioration of the security
situation and growing influence of the Taliban – is unacceptable. So
too is the status quo ante – a largely ungoverned region controlled by
extremists in which the United States had little influence or ability
to gain actionable intelligence on the ground.
The president’s new strategic concept aims to reverse the Taliban’s
momentum and reduce its strength while providing the time and space
necessary for the Afghans to develop enough security and governance
capacity to stabilize their own country.
We will focus our resources where the population is most threatened,
and align military and civilian efforts accordingly – with six primary
objectives:
Reversing Taliban momentum through sustained military action by the
U.S., our allies, and the Afghans;
Denying the Taliban access to and control of key population and
production centers and lines of communications;
Disrupting the Taliban outside secured areas and preventing Al Qaeda
from regaining sanctuary in Afghanistan;
Degrading the Taliban to levels manageable by Afghan National Security
Forces;
Increasing the size and capability of the Afghan National Security
Forces and employing other local forces selectively to begin
transitioning security responsibility to the Afghan government within
18 months; and
Finally, selectively building the capacity of Afghan government,
particularly in key ministries.
This approach is not open-ended “nation building.” It is neither
necessary nor feasible to create a modern, centralized, Western-style
Afghan nation-state – the likes of which has never been seen in that
country. Nor does it entail pacifying every village and conducting
textbook counterinsurgency from one end of Afghanistan to the other.
It is, instead, a narrower focus tied more tightly to our core goal of
disrupting, dismantling and eventually defeating Al Qaeda by building
the capacity of the Afghans – capacity that will be measured by
observable progress on clear objectives, and not simply by the passage
of time.
The essence of our civil-military plan is to clear, hold, build, and
transfer. Beginning to transfer security responsibility to the Afghans
in summer 2011 is critical – and, in my view, achievable. This
transfer will occur district by district, province by province,
depending on conditions on the ground. The process will be similar to
what we did in Iraq, where international security forces provided
“overwatch” – first at the tactical level, and then at the strategic
level. Even after we transfer security responsibility to the Afghans
and draw down our combat forces, the United States will continue to
support their development as an important partner for the long haul.
We will not repeat the mistakes of 1989, when we abandoned the country
only to see it descend into chaos, and into Taliban hands.
Making this transition possible requires accelerating the development
of a significantly larger and more capable Afghan army and police
through intensive partnering with ISAF forces, especially in combat.
It also means achieving a better balance between national and local
forces; increasing Afghan unconventional warfare capabilities;
engaging communities to enlist more local security forces to protect
their own territory; and bolstering Afghan-led reintegration and
reconciliation efforts.
At the strategic level, the president’s plan will achieve a better
balance between investments in the central government and sub-national
entities. At the national level, the focus will be primarily on
reforming essential ministries and pressing for the appointment of
competent and honest ministers and governors. At the local and
regional level, there will be a shift to work through existing,
traditional structures rather than building new ones. In all of
these efforts, we must have a committed partner in the Afghan people
and government. That is one reason why there will be very clear and
definitive timeframes for reviewing our – and their – progress.
As the president announced, the United States will commit an
additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18 to
24 months. These forces – the U.S. contribution to the fight – will be
deployed and concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the
country. The first of these forces will begin to arrive in Afghanistan
within two to three weeks.
In all, since taking office President Obama has committed nearly
52,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for a total U.S. force of
approximately 100,000. We are looking to NATO and our other partners
to send a parallel international message of strong resolve. Our Allies
must take the lead and focus their resources in the north and west to
prevent the insurgency from establishing new footholds. We will seek
some five to 7,000 troops from NATO and expect the Allies to share
more of the burden in training, equipping, and funding the Afghan
National Army and police.
Let me offer a few closing thoughts.
It is worth remembering that the security situation in Afghanistan –
though serious – does not begin to approach the scale of violence that
consumed Iraq and confronted our forces there when I was confirmed as
secretary of defense three years ago this week. With all the resources
already committed to this campaign – plus those the president has just
announced – I believe the pieces are being put in place to make real
and measurable progress in Afghanistan over the next 18 to 24 months.
The president believes, as do I, that, in the end, we cannot defeat Al
Qaeda and its toxic ideology without improving and stabilizing the
security situation in Afghanistan. The president’s decision offers
the best possibility to decisively change the momentum in Afghanistan,
and fundamentally alter the strategic equation in Pakistan and Central
Asia – all necessary to protect the United States, our allies, and our
vital interests. So, I ask for your full support of this decision to
provide both Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal the
resources they need to be successful.
This is will take more patience, perseverance, and sacrifice by the
United States and by our allies. And, as always, the heaviest burden
will fall on the men and women who have volunteered – and in many
cases re-volunteered – to serve their country in uniform. I know they
will be uppermost in our minds and prayers as we take on this arduous
but vitally necessary mission.
http://www.defenselink.mil//speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1403
Sid Harth
By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2009 – A new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan that
entails adding 30,000 more troops by summer enables commanders there
to take the lead within a year, the military’s top officer said
today.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Navy Adm. Mike Mullen testifies before the
Senate Armed Services Committee regarding President Barack Obamas
announcement that he is sending an additional 30,000 troops to the war
in Afghanistan, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Dec. 2, 2009. DoD
photo by Navy Petty Officer1st Class Chad J. McNeeley
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image
available.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the
Senate Armed Services Committee the strategy provides sufficient
resources for Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S. and
international forces in Afghanistan, to reverse gains insurgent groups
have made in recent years.
“It gets the most U.S. force into the fight as quickly as possible,
giving General McChrystal everything he needs in 2010 to gain the
initiative,” the chairman said.
President Barack Obama articulated the new approach to Afghanistan and
Pakistan last night in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West
Point, N.Y. The strategy, which culminates months of deliberation with
senior advisors, considered input from every military leader in the
chain of command, Mullen said.
The goals Obama outlined in the speech include reversing momentum the
Taliban have made in past years and securing key population centers in
Afghanistan -- especially in the contentious southern and eastern
regions.
The added troops will bring the total number of U.S. forces to nearly
100,000, in addition to a complement of roughly 42,000 allied troops –
a number which senior administration officials said they expect to
increase with additional contributions from NATO allies.
“We now have the force of strategy more appropriately matched to the
situation on the ground in Afghanistan and resources matched more
appropriately to that strategy, particularly with regard to reversing
the insurgency's momentum in 2010,” Mullen told senators.
The additional U.S. troops likely will comprise two or three more
brigade combat teams and a brigade-sized element committed to
embedding with and training their Afghan counterparts, which
represents a key component undergirding the transfer of responsibility
to Afghanistan, expected to begin in July.
Mullen said the strategy provides commanders “discrete objectives” and
offers better guidance about how to employ their forces. While the
goals of thwarting al-Qaida, preventing Afghanistan from becoming a
terrorist safe haven and employing a counterinsurgency approach are
unchanged, the strategy engenders a more defined scope, he said.
“Now, they will tailor this campaign and those operations by focusing
on key population areas, by increasing pressure on al-Qaida's
leadership, by more effectively working to degrade the Taliban's
influence and by streamlining and accelerating the growth of competent
Afghan national security forces,” Mullen said.
The chairman said Obama’s strategy takes into account Afghanistan’s
regional context, calling for stronger cooperation with neighboring
Pakistan – a necessary component for eliminating terrorist safe
havens.
“His is a more balanced, more flexible and more achievable strategy
than we've had in the past, one based on pragmatism and real
possibilities,” Mullen said. “And speaking for the 2.2 million men and
women who must execute it, and who, with their families, have borne
the brunt of the stress and the strain of eight years of constant
combat, I support his decision and appreciate his leadership.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56904
Sid Harth
.
We have been presented a great opportunity to take the tremendous work
of our Coalition force to the next level. The clarity, capability,
and commitment outlined in President Obama’s address are critical
steps toward eliminating an insurgency in Afghanistan and terrorist
safe havens that threaten regional and global security.
Each of you can be proud of the effort we have made here – not just in
bringing the fight to the enemy, but in reshaping that fight to
achieve more lasting effects, grow our partnership with Afghan
security forces, and strengthen relationships with government
officials and the Afghan people. You have performed magnificently,
and I believe our renewed Coalition campaign is fortified by the path
President Obama has put forward.
Our NATO International Security Assistance Force objective remains
clear: We will work toward a transfer of responsibility to Afghan
security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. They need our help –
and we are here for them, for their future, and for the safety and
security of coalition nations.
The additional resources called for by President Obama will continue
to advance a winning strategy. In recent months we have seen real
progress that must be preserved and expanded. The increase of
Coalition forces earlier this year in the Helmand River Valley, along
with expanded civilian capacity, have improved security and
stability. This is also helping to foster essential governance and
basic economic development.
We still face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our mission has
renewed purpose sustained by one unassailable reality: Neither the
international community nor the Afghan people want this country to
remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The price to be paid in
this conflict is high. But the stakes are higher.
President Obama’s decision is a clear reflection not only of his
intended strategy, but of his confidence in the success we can achieve
– success earned by the competence and courage you display every day
in Afghanistan.
I am privileged to be serving with you, and I am confident that our
partnership with Afghans will enable real change to Afghanistan,
grounded in a secure and stable environment that allows for effective
governance, economic independence and the freedom of every Afghan to
choose how to live. In doing so, we will preserve for our own
Coalition nations the lasting security we seek for the people of
Afghanistan.
General Stanley A. McChrystal
Commander, International Security Assistance Force
Afghanistan
Sid Harth
By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2009 – The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan today
expressed support for a new strategy that entails sending 30,000 more
American troops to Afghanistan by next summer and begins a drawdown of
forces in July 2011.
Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of the International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, addresses members of his
staff Dec. 2, 2009, in Kabul, moments after President Barack Obama
announced he would send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. NATO
photo
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image
available.
President Barack Obama articulated the plan today in a speech at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. – culminating months of
deliberation with his senior advisors on the way forward.
"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me
with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our
task,” Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in a published statement.
“The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the president's
address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and
eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global
security.”
The goals Obama outlined in the speech include reversing momentum the
Taliban has made in past years and securing key population centers in
Afghanistan -- especially in the contentious southern and eastern
regions.
The added troops will bring the total number of U.S. forces to nearly
100,000, in addition to a complement of roughly 42,000 allied troops.
McChrystal said the 42 other nations contributing forces will benefit
from a strengthened U.S. commitment.
“The concerted commitment of the international community will prevail
in bringing real change to Afghanistan -- a secure and stable
environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic
opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live,”
he said.
Senior administration officials today said the additional U.S. troops
will likely comprise two or three more brigade combat teams and a
brigade-sized element committed to embedding with and training their
Afghan counterparts – a key component undergirding the transfer of
responsibility to Afghanistan to begin July 2011.
“Our Afghan partners need the support of coalition forces while we
grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police,”
McChrystal said. “That will be the main focus of our campaign in the
months ahead.”
The general said efforts to overcome challenges in Afghanistan are
sustained by the reality that neither the Afghan people nor the
international community wants the country to remain a sanctuary for
terror and violence.
“The coalition is encouraged by President Obama's commitment and we
remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the
insurgency and build their own future,” he said.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56898
bademiyansubhanallah
Johnson, Gorbachev, Obama
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 2, 2009
Imagine you’re a villager living in southern Afghanistan.
You’re barely educated, proud of your region’s history of stopping
invaders and suspicious of outsiders. Like most of your fellow
Pashtuns, you generally dislike the Taliban because many are
overzealous, truculent nutcases.
Yet you are even more suspicious of the infidel American troops. You
know of some villages where the Americans have helped build roads and
been respectful of local elders and customs. On the other hand, you
know of other villages where the infidel troops have invaded homes,
shamed families by ogling women, or bombed wedding parties.
You’re angry that your people, the Pashtuns, traditionally the
dominant tribe of Afghanistan, seem to have been pushed aside in
recent years, with American help. Moreover, the Afghan government has
never been more corrupt. The Taliban may be incompetent, but at least
they are pious Muslim Pashtuns and reasonably honest.
You were always uncomfortable with foreign troops in your land, but it
wasn’t so bad the first few years when there were only about 10,000
American soldiers in the entire country. Now, after President Obama’s
speech on Tuesday, there soon will be 100,000. That’s three times as
many as when the president took office, and 10 times as many as in
2003.
Hmmm. You still distrust the Taliban, but maybe they’re right to warn
about infidels occupying your land. Perhaps you’ll give a goat to
support your clansman who joined the local Taliban.
That’s why so many people working in Afghanistan at the grass roots
are watching the Obama escalation with a sinking feeling. President
Lyndon Johnson doubled down on the Vietnam bet soon after he inherited
the presidency, and Mikhail Gorbachev escalated the Soviet deployment
that he inherited in Afghanistan soon after he took over the
leadership of his country. They both inherited a mess — and made it
worse and costlier.
As with the Americans in Vietnam, and Soviets in Afghanistan, we
understate the risk of a nationalist backlash; somehow Mr. Obama has
emerged as more enthusiastic about additional troops than even the
corrupt Afghan government we are buttressing.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned in his report on the situation in
Afghanistan that “new resources are not the crux” of the problem.
Rather, he said, the key is a new approach that emphasizes winning
hearts and minds: “Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain
or destroying insurgent troops; our objective must be the population.”
So why wasn’t the Afghan population more directly consulted?
“To me, what was most concerning is that there was never any
consultation with the Afghan shura, the tribal elders,” said Greg
Mortenson, whose extraordinary work building schools in Pakistan and
Afghanistan was chronicled in “Three Cups of Tea” and his new book,
“From Stones to Schools.” “It was all decided on the basis of
congressmen and generals speaking up, with nobody consulting Afghan
elders. One of the elders’ messages is we don’t need firepower, we
need brainpower. They want schools, health facilities, but not
necessarily more physical troops.”
For the cost of deploying one soldier for one year, it is possible to
build about 20 schools.
Another program that is enjoying great success in undermining the
Taliban is the National Solidarity Program, or N.S.P., which helps
villages build projects that they choose — typically schools, clinics,
irrigation projects, bridges. This is widely regarded as one of the
most successful and least corrupt initiatives in Afghanistan.
“It’s a terrific program,” said George Rupp, the president of the
International Rescue Committee. “But it’s underfunded. And it takes
very little: for the cost of one U.S. soldier for a year, you could
have the N.S.P. in 20 more villages.”
These kinds of projects — including girls’ schools — are often
possible even in Taliban areas. One aid group says that the Taliban
allowed it to build a girls’ school as long as the teachers were women
and as long as the textbooks did not include photos of President Hamid
Karzai. And the Taliban usually don’t mess with projects that have
strong local support. (That’s why they haven’t burned any of Mr.
Mortenson’s schools.)
America’s military spending in Afghanistan alone next year will now
exceed the entire official military budget of every other country in
the world.
Over time, education has been the single greatest force to stabilize
societies. It’s no magic bullet, but it reduces birth rates, raises
living standards and subdues civil conflict and terrorism. That’s why
as a candidate Mr. Obama proposed a $2 billion global education fund —
a promise he seems to have forgot.
My hunch is that if Mr. Obama wants success in Afghanistan, he would
be far better off with 30,000 more schools than 30,000 more troops.
Instead, he’s embarking on a buildup that may become an albatross on
his presidency.
•
I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on
Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
48 of 153 Readers' Comments
6.Kate Madison Depoe Bay, Oregon December 3rd, 2009 7:21 am...
“To me, what was most concerning is that there was never any
consultation with the Afghan shura, the tribal elders,” said Greg
Mortenson, whose extraordinary work building schools in Pakistan and
Afghanistan was chronicled in “Three Cups of Tea” and his new book,
“From Stones to Schools.” “It was all decided on the basis of
congressmen and generals speaking up, with nobody consulting Afghan
elders. One of the elders’ messages is we don’t need firepower, we
need brainpower. They want schools, health facilities, but not
necessarily more physical troops.”
You have asked the question that has been troubling me, Nic! WHY were
the Afghan tribal elders NOT at the table when this war escalation was
being planned? I kept looking for Greg Mortenson's name and even wrote
the White House and State Department to ask if they had talked to him.
No response--and they clearly have NOT! This is regrettable and
irresponsible!
Here is a man who has lived among Afghan tribes in remote mountain
villages, has built schools, speaks several Afghani languages, and has
the respect of all the villagers he has dealt with!
Mortonsen's is really the Peace Corps idea at its very best!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?? We need to demand that President Obama and
General McChrystal speak with Mr. Mortenson, and the few others who
have gained respect in the Afghan world, before we allow Congress to
release funds for this war! This means calling and writing our
congresspeople and senators--perhaps even showing up in Washington!
This is what Obama meant when he talked about "THE FIERCE URGENCY OF
NOW!"
Recommended by 190 Readers
4.Phil in the mountains of Kyushu Japan December 3rd, 2009 7:20 am
Surely you jest – that America would consult with its target
traditional cultures.
Since when do you think the U.S. particularly cares about on-the-
ground realities of lands it has targeted? Didn’t do that in Nam.
Don’t have to do it anytime so long as U.S. Triumphal Land mainly
treats the world as culturally-empty voids all just sitting around
waiting for Corporate America expansionism. You know the history – how
for setting up thug states the U.S. has ever sponsored overthrowing
democracies – Mossadegh’s in Iran, Arbenz’s in Guatemala, Allende’s in
Chile. It has meant supporting the Greek colonels against democracy.
It has meant supporting the dictatorship in Indonesia that killed
500,000 in ’65. It has meant the insanely corrupt Mobutu regime in
Africa, and South American dictators getting militias and secret
police trained at that special school for terror at Fort Benning,
Georgia. It’s most recently meant installation of more dictators
across the Petro-le-stans of southwest Asia.
While you’re agonizing over what seems to you the oddity of its
stupidity in Afghanistan, remember that U.S. Triumphal Land still
supports the anti-democracies Egypt and Saudi Arabia – no Qs ever
asked why their sons flew those planes on 9-11. It still has over 700
U.S. military bases around the world. At home it forces millions to
take off their shoes at airports in rituals designed only for
humiliation, genuflection to the Corporate State. And in the one area
where people might ask good questions, get wider, more human
perspectives – in education – the same corporate habits rule from K-12
to all higher ed’s niche departments. The U.S. government rewards
these by the Fulbright program – but no surprise here. No surprise
that Prez O jumps to more war, and with only slogans for cover – none
of the on-the-ground consultation your reality checks say would have
been better..
The U.S. is ruled by the helplessness that comes when so many in it
have only learned to be captive, sold to a corporate culture that in
its war on all other cultures can only kill communities, only grovel
to CEO greed, and only continue to make all in it delusional.
Recommended by 163 Readers
13.Asdaq Manhattan Beach December 3rd, 2009 7:24 am
Has anyone cared to answer, "what are we to achieve in Afghanistan?"
Our entry in Afghanistan has made America safer? Is Osama Bin Laden
dead? Are the terrorists dead or rehabilitated? So, why are we in
Afghanistan?
Recommended by 98 Readers
10.pvolkov Burlington, Ontario December 3rd, 2009 7:23 am
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for continuing to push for sanity regarding
our connection with Afghanistan. Not only did President Obama and
staff not consult Afghanistan representatives, he did not listen to
the concerns of the American people, most of whom do not want to have
our troops remaining in their country.
His speech showed a great deal of ignorance about Afghanistan history
and United States involvement. As well, his personal vision of why and
how his decision was made seems to represent those of the military
mindset which has prevented other voices from being heard.
We are facing an impossible challenge which will become more and more
obvious as time goes on and I hope that it will galvanize the anti war
supporters to force an end to this travesty.
Recommended by 94 Readers
19.Michael Florida December 3rd, 2009 7:30 am
We could use those 30,000 new schools in our own country. People are
losing their homes to foreclosure not only because they can't make the
mortgage payments, but because they also cannot afford the inflated
property taxes, most of which go to funding local school districts.
The $30 billion/year it will cost to support those additional 30,000
soldiers the president is sending to Afghanistan would be better spent
on a jobs program or another stimulus package here at home. We are
beggaring our own population to "save the world." Not wise.
Recommended by 93 Readers
21.Cdr. John Newlin Vista, Calif. December 3rd, 2009 7:54 am
Kristof's eloquent and insightful analysis of President Obama's
horrific mistake of sending 30 thousand more troops to Afghanistan
will go unheeded by the only entity that could prevent it - President
Obama.
The President is not only getting bad advice, he is most probably
being lied to by General McChrystal. After all it was McChrystal who
blatantly lied about the circumstance surrounding Pat Tillman's death
by friendly fire in Afghanistan. Warriors are trained to make war and
McChrystal is a warrior who like the generals who lied to Lyndon
Johnson, adheres to the "better than no war at all" mantra even if it
bankrupts the nation he is sworn to serve both financially and
morally.
The President has not only doomed the legacy of his administration by
taking this wrongful action but he as ensured himself of dealing with
a Republican majority in the Congress over the last two terms of his
one-term presidency. And the nation will suffer greatly for it.
Why no one in the government listens to the wise voices of those like
Mr. Kristof is a mystery. Why Obama is dead set on hurtling American
into the abyss that swallowed up Alexander the Great, Great Britain,
and the Soviet Union is beyond me. But he is, sadly, he is.
As Edith Ann was wont to say, "And that's the truth."
Recommended by 86 Readers
22.Proxxy Seattle December 3rd, 2009 7:55 am
"America’s military spending in Afghanistan alone next year will now
exceed the entire official military budget of every other country in
the world."
And we are borrowing that money! Our politicians are corrupt and
incompetent. And we citizens who allow them to do this are spineless
fools.
Recommended by 76 Readers
1.Lynn Mays Pa December 3rd, 2009 7:17 am
Obama is no Gorbachev, but if he lucky , he will end up as a third-
rate version of Johnson. Oh well, at least he got the failed bankers
back all of their lost money, plus much more. And he will be giving
jobs to about 35,000 of our sons and daughters working for his ego
trip in Afghanistan
Recommended by 71 Readers
2.Bob Sallamack New Jersey December 3rd, 2009 7:17 am
The Taliban have changed since they were chased out of Afghanistan in
2001. Prior to 2001 they outlawed the opium trade, but now embrace it.
This accounts for their support by Afghans. Anyone who embraces the
opium trade in Afghanistan will be accepted by Afghans.
The Taliban now understand the Afghan people and have changed from
their previous policy of outlawing the opium trade to totally
embracing the opium trade. During the harvest season the fighters of
the Taliban work in the fields to help farmers to harvest poppy. The
chaos of the random corruption of the Afghan government is gone with
the Taliban simply collecting fees for their full support of the
farmers and middlemen in the opium trade.
This is the reality of Afghanistan. A struggle of the Taliban who are
willing to organize and bring order to the opium trade, fighting
against a corrupt government that simply wants to continue in the old
ways of chaos of random corruption of the opium trade.
The occupation of American troops of areas of Afghanistan will simply
trigger a holy crusade against the foreign invaders.
We continue to look only at our objectives in other nations and
continue to reject reality.
Recommended by 63 Readers
7.Stuart Richmond, CA December 3rd, 2009 7:21 am
Creative, humane, well-reasoned, inspiring--let's do this and not the
invasion thing !
Recommended by 58 Readers
14.Richard Luettgen New Jersey December 3rd, 2009 7:25 am
Makes you wonder, don’t it? Barrack Obama may be our most intelligent
and sophisticated president since Woodrow Wilson – even more
intelligent and sophisticated than JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter or the
Billster. Surely he knows the historical precedents as well as you (or
we) do. Yet he gives the generals almost all that they want.
Makes you wonder about Stone’s (and others’) suggestion that it was
the military who offed JFK because he was likely to have walked away
from Vietnam. President Obama may know more history than we do.
But with all the desperate need we face in our own country, this
“surge” had better work; and the Afghanis and Pakistanis had better
take note: when faced with hoof-and-mouth disease and a set of choices
that are all bad, one might always conclude that if there are no
hooves-and-mouths, then there is no disease.
Oh, and by the way, a reasonable, objective person might regard the
ogling of women, while perhaps distasteful, to be on a somewhat higher
moral plain than the stoning of those same women for the crime of
“fornication” while being raped. “Barely educated” indeed.
Recommended by 37 Readers
12.JG Caesarea December 3rd, 2009 7:24 am
"My hunch is that if Mr. Obama wants success in Afghanistan, he would
be far better off with 30,000 more schools than 30,000 more troops."
Nick, my hunch is different: The Taliban would dynamite these schools,
erected by the infidels, at the first opportunity, much as they
destroyed the 6th century Buddhas of Bamyan.
This is truly an instance where charity begins at home. Use the money
for education in the U.S.; the next generation of Americans will need
to be very wise in order to grapple with the massive budget deficits
being created by Obama's war spending.
http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/
Recommended by 34 Readers
11.soso Canada December 3rd, 2009 7:23 am
This decision, seemingly enthusiastic, only shows more the personal
and national inner insecurity and the clear need to look tough as
cover up.
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers 17.B. StarksAustin, TXDecember
3rd, 20097:29 amMaybe now is the time for those of us who supported
"change" consult with our representatives to help them block this
"change". I concur that there is a need for action, but more along the
lines laid out in this column than in the President's speech. As Mr.
Herbert said, this will probably be a "tragic mistake".
Recommended by 31 Readers
9.schrodinger Northern California December 3rd, 2009 7:23 am
Why I support more troops:
1/ I think our generals have more expertise in counter-insurgency
operations than Mr Kristoff. Shouldn't we listen to the experts?
2/ The military suceeded with the surge strategy in Iraq. Why
shouldn't we try the same thing in Afghanistan?
3/We don't want to see Osama bin Laden leading a victorious army into
Kabul.
4/If Afghanistan falls into chaos, it could destabilize Pakistan. That
could lead to a nuclear armed Al-Qaeda.
5/ At the beginning, Afghanistan was far more of a success than Iraq.
We didn't do enough to ensure that the war stayed won, which is why we
are in trouble now. However, Afghans seem to be more receptive to US
troops than Iraqis ever were.
6/Relying on airstrikes is a policy to kill lots of women and
children. It is hard to understand what is happening on the
battlefield without having ground troops. Airstrikes have a long
history of killing the wrong targets, even when leaders are being
careful.
I think the President got it exactly right. We can't afford an open
ended commitment, which Republicans who have abandoned fiscal
conservatism seem to want. However, we should take the advice of the
experts.
Recommended by 30 Readers
18.mwg canada December 3rd, 2009 7:29 am
It's refreshing to hear your views on Afghanistan from the ground.
This is the kind of approach which shows a real respect for the people
of Afghanistan and surely involving them in the process or consulting
the tribal leaders regarding military issues which directly effect
them, would be a very positive step in the direction of winning their
hearts and minds.
The benefits of diverting enormous sums of money away from increased
militarization and into more rebuilding of the educational and social
infrastructure would seem to be a wise and logical thing to do. Maybe
then the fear and loathing of American troops would be diminished and
the US could be seen for what it is actually trying to do - to help
the people of Afghanistan realize their hopes and dreams for a better
future.
Recommended by 29 Readers
15.RPW Arizona December 3rd, 2009 7:28 am
Interesting, Mr. Kristof, that you portray this typical Afghan very
much the way soldiers returning from Vietnam described the typical
Vietnamese - indecisive, no fire in their hearts, and basically
wanting to be able to continue their lives once the conflict is ended.
Hedging -- not fighting.
Like the Viet Cong who saw no other alternative than to eliminate
Americans from their country, the Taliban are also bound to be
victorious.
We tried educating the Vietnamese children, but it was largely
propaganda -- remember when the Viet Cong rammed chop sticks in the
children's ears, into their brains, who had been indoctrinated against
them in these schools?
I doubt schools that teach Afghan children anything other than Islam
of the harsh moral type the Taliban follow will be of any use in our
war against the Taliban either.
If there is a moral approach, as McChrystal proposes, the US hasn't
found it. Looks like more dead Taliban, Afghan civilians and American
boys but no peace. Prepare your self for more blood and mayhem.
Recommended by 27 Readers
25.Monacu Italy December 3rd, 2009 7:55 am
Nick Kristof, one of our very best journalists since China in the
1980s, is right to worry that Washington overestimates the efficacy of
foreign military intervention in Afghanistan. But after nearly 35
years of my own as a journalist, many of them in the Middle East and
Central Asia, I fear that he underestimates the malevolence of what
the Taliban represent.
Recommended by 24 Readers
24.dcc arizona December 3rd, 2009 7:55 am
Think any of our civilian and military leaders ever read "The Ugly
American?"
Recommended by 23 Readers
5.Matt Lye St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada December 3rd, 2009 7:20 am
Perhaps this is a good idea. The next time you consult an Afghani on
these matters, please solicit his opinion as to how the Taliban might
respond to the construction of these schools.
Recommended by 21 Readers
26.Observer Canada December 3rd, 2009 9:45 am
Obama's Afghanistan decision is necessarily political and that means
it is driven by American Interest. It is not about peace and
compassion.
The truth about these American Interests is not suitable for public
consumption and will not find its way into a Presidential Speech. Open
discussion of these American interests are politically incorrect since
they trample on sovereignty and human rights. They will not be heard
out of the mouths of the usual cast of media pundits either.
What are some of the interests? Occupying Afghanistan to establish US
military bases conveniently close to Russia, Pakistan and India, all
with nuclear weapons is one. Then there are interests of the military-
Industrial complex that continues to make huge war-profits. Money will
flow from the tax-payer pockets to the war machine manufacturers and
caterers, with the elected officials getting their cut through
generous election financing donations. The partisan politics of the
coming election season must be covered. The list can go on and on. All
paid for by blood and sweat of soldiers and their collateral of
course.
Recommended by 18 Readers
23.Brown Bourne Providence December 3rd, 2009 7:55 am
What never penetrates the italicized narrative is that President Obama
is different than the Brits, the Russians, and even the previous
American administration.
When he says that we don't want to build an empire, and that we're
going home in three years, it doesn't fall on deaf ears. Illiterate
people still talk to literate people; they aren't so disconnected from
the literate world that they won't catch wind of the main gist.
President Bush didn't have the same kind of worldliness (or frankly,
the knowledge of Islam) that allows President Obama to credibly
denounce Al Qaeda extremists as perverting one of the world's great
religions. That nuanced position speaks directly to this hypothetical
Pashtun guy in the italics. If I'm proud of my heritage and religion,
I'm going to think twice about giving my goat to somebody I know is
slaughtering innocent civilians in the name of my God, especially when
the voice behind an American troop influx has finally questioned this
Taliban guy's moral standing on terms I understand.
For hospitals and schools to thrive, you need to make sure a
transnational terror network can't convert them into IED factories
once we drawn down. I don't think there are any good options in this
situation, but you can't beat Al Qaeda with books alone. You need
American troops to sweep in like Thomas P. M. Barnett's Leviathan
Force, and then you can bring in the SysAdmin overlay once the local
nationals cobble together a domestic security force.
-Brown Bourne
blog: http://brownbourne.wordpress.com
roll: http://brownbourne.wikidot.com
Recommended by 16 Readers
28.Eli Boston, MA December 3rd, 2009 9:45 am
I agree on the need for 30,000 schools, but this is the justification
for the 30,000 troops. The women in Afghanistan are in a similar
situation as the Jews were under Hitler, dehumanized.
Women's rights is not a religious preference it is a human right.
Recommended by 14 Readers
20.WGM California December 3rd, 2009 7:30 am
I agree that our overall approach to helping the people of Afghanistan
must be focused on helping them build solid infrastructure that
includes education. But shouldn't that cost be shared with other
countries who have just as much at stake in the region? Why should
America shoulder the financial burden when it is Europe's consumers
and China's manufacturers that stand to profit from a terrorist free
Afghanistan. You are right to point out that 30,000 more schools will
be more effective, and I can only hope that it will be other nations
coming together with the United States that will help Afghanistan rid
itself of the extremism that plagues the it's development.
Recommended by 14 Readers
3.jjcrocket New Britain, Conn.December 3rd, 2009 7:19 am
We built schools and the Taliban blew them up!! We asked the Taliban
and Afghani's to turn over Bin laden and they did not!!
So! We should just leave the Taliban alone to kill women and/or leave
them uneducated. We should let the al Qaeda grow exponentially with
our blessing!
It is time the USA stops apologizing, and kicks some butt! Until
surrender!
V-I-C-T-O-R-Y
VICTORY VICTORY VICTORY!!
44.Aaron WV December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
We really do need to just leave. Hawks cry blah blah nukes, Pakistan,
Taliban takeover, wasted lives, failure, blah blah. Al Qaeda will
regroup and strike us again, blah blah.
Leave and use a fraction of our current Afghan budget on funding
special forces and CIA to operate in the region without a standing
army. Or the countless other things we could spend hundreds of
billions of dollars a year on that would make us safer.
It's laughable to think we can train the entire Afghan army in 18
months. Or do anything in that amount of time besides spend a lot of
money and get more of our troops killed. We won't be able to leave in
2011. Not unless Obama's strategy is to bet that his (inevitably
Republican at this rate) successor will make the same doomed decision
he just did and the Dems can win again in 2016.
But by then no one will care because the only non-military jobs left
will be banking jobs and the security personnel to defend the fortress
necessary to protect Wall Street against the bands of starving
peasants.
Recommended by 12 Readers
40.bergamo italy December 3rd, 2009 10:18 am
Right on, Nicholas!
Problem is Obama won't attack the two institutions responsible for the
decline of democracy in the USA in the past decades, the lobby and the
army, and he is left with no other choice but to bow to their demands.
Bill Moyer's chronicle of the agonizing year that led Johnson down the
road of defeat in Vietnam are a reminder of the power of the military,
which, feeding on the jingoism -- and, in the end, ignorance -- of the
American culture ended up forcing on him a decision he fought all
along to take.
Obama is green, not because he lacks experience, but because he does
not yet have the guts to stare these two monsters, lobby and army,
down.
Recommended by 12 Readers
38.Bob Royfills San Francisco December 3rd, 2009 10:16 am
Nicholas, you may be right, but you seem to assume that O cares about
the outcome in Afghanistan, or about anything except looking good and
being all things to all people. By this time next week, he'll be in
Oslo, delivering a stirring speech on a familiar topic, the
wonderfulness of his own election. Only 35 months until this orgy of
narcissism is over.
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers 29.Practical_ManWash,
D.C.December 3rd, 200910:07 amThere needs to be a sustained movement
towards establishing a third-party political system in the U.S. to
counter what exists today, a political fossil (aka dragon) with two
heads – democrat and republican! This dragon is leading us on the path
to societal self-destruction. It is obvious that it [the dragon] is
not concerned with costs associated with our unwinnable Afghanistan
military excursion. They’ve put on blinders for the costs of this war
blunder however, the hypocrisy of their misguided thinking is more
appalling considering their opposition to single-payer health care for
all Americans!! Case-in-point [cost for a gallon of fuel], the
following excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article, “Fight Looms on
How to Pay for New War Plan”, dated December 1, 2009:
“...Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said many
of the Afghan war's high costs result from the difficulty and expense
of trucking fuel, food and other supplies into the landlocked country.
In a speech in mid-October, Gen. Conway said military-grade fuel --
which costs roughly $1 a gallon in the U.S. -- can sometimes cost the
Marine Corps about $400 per gallon once all the expenses of ferrying
it into Afghanistan are factored in. The Marines operating in southern
Afghanistan consume more than 88,000 gallons of the fuel per day, he
said.
"Most all of that comes along this fairly tenuous supply line across
Pakistan, where we're paying large amounts of money to tribes so that
they don't fight each other and so that they don't raid our supply
lines," Gen. Conway said at an energy conference in Virginia....”
Recommended by 11 Readers
48.Art Tokyo, Japan December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
Mr. Kristof couldn't make a stronger case. Well done. It seems to me
that Obama's decision is so transparently political. Send troops
before the 2010 midterms; bring them home before his re-election
campaign in 2012. When we could be paying for schools here and there
instead. I'm growing ashamed of our current president, whose first
book I have highly recommended. Tough times indeed.
Recommended by 10 Readers
31.John MacCormak Athens, Georgia December 3rd, 2009 10:11 am
There's no agreement on Afghanistan because no one agrees on why there
should even be consideration of US involvement in the first place.
Kristof seems to assume that the US is some sort of social worker-cum-
charity-cum enlightened patron, whose humanitarian efforts will lift
Afghans out of poverty and oppression and show the "hearts and minds"
of the good people that the Taliban are not the right way to go. Apart
from the curious fact that these people daydream about nation-building
in far off lands while the nation is rotting at their own doorstep,
the fact that the US has never succeeded in an uplifting nation-
building scheme should give pause for thought. Why the inevitable
failure? Because an occupying power's legitimacy is always based
military force and, yes, oppression. Even if they want to be seen as
kind dudes. One of the problems an invader faces is that it is, er, an
invader and an alien. Western powers traditionally invade on the
argument that they are trying to support some legitimate national
majority against a band of local thugs, misfits, oppressors,
extremists. This is a pathetic argument designed for audiences in the
invader's country, but doesn't wash "over there", where people live
the reality of a superpower shoring up a state rendered permanently
weak, corrupt, and incompetent by poverty.
Others believe that the US is on a mission to win a war against the
Taliban, with the battlefield being Afghanistan and Pakistan. This
argument also doesn't fly, because the Taliban is not a country.
Terrorists, a mercifully rare lot, spring from the most unlikely
places, from California, to Britain, to Saudi Arabia.
Ultimately, the war in Afghanistan is all about America and its own
preoccupations. Even Kristof's closing line reveals this, raising the
old spectre of Vietnam and warning that the war effort may become
Obama's Albatross. Well, now, wouldn't that put a damper on White
House parties.
Recommended by 10 Readers
8.D. Gundun Washington DC December 3rd, 2009 7:22 am
What's so surprising that the Afghan people weren't consulted? Neither
were the American people nor NATO. Pakistan is tepidly supporting
Obama's strategy while also warning it was left out. This is how the
White House operates - "right makes might," in Obama's words,
believing he has all the answers. In 18 months, it will be clear that
Obama didn't have them all last night. He should either fight the war
on the level it demands or formulate a true exit strategy. This middle-
road strategy is destined for stalemate, and a future where
humiliating defeat can only be staved off by even more troops.
The Trench promises no answers but does provide counterinsurgency
analysis to the best of our ability at
Recommended by 10 Readers
27.C.W.West Coast December 3rd, 2009 9:45 am
General McChrystal says Obama's objective in Afghanistan is winning
hearts and minds. And they'll do that by spending billions of dollars
buying off insurgents and Taliban sympathizers. At best, this offers
only a temporary solution. What happens when we leave and the payments
stop?
Recommended by 9 Readers
49.John D.Idaho December 3rd, 2009 11:39 am
To be bluntly psychological about it, it's the same old Democratic
fear/inferiority complex at work, out-militarizing the military so
they won't think he's weak. I doubt anyone missed the fact that
Obama's "national" speech the other night was addressed in tough-guy
fashion to the military, not to the American people as a whole. Now,
of course, there will be minor Congressional hurdles - only minor,
naturally, because of the same fear/inferiority thing at work.
It's an equation for endless war; we'll stop only when we're
absolutely stone-broke as a nation and the entire cohort of the
unemployed working class is either dead or their lives destroyed by
permanent injury and incapacity. The improvement over the Republicans
is only in the emphasis on process and objectives - even if the latter
make no sense whatsoever.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 43.indepthinkerBay area,
CaliforniaDecember 3rd, 200910:48 amNicholas Kristof and Bob Herbert
are the two best columnists, in my opinion, in this country. Both are
absolutely correct in their analysis of how Obama's war in Afghanistan
is a disaster for most Afghans and people in this country alike.
Greg Mortenson deserves the Nobel Peace Prize infinitely more than
Obama. Thank you Mr. Kristof for mentioning his newest book, which I
was not yet aware of.
As someone who enthusiastically supported Barack Obama for president
and considers George W Bush the third worst president, after Andrew
Johnson and Herbert Hoover, I am very disappointed with his lack of
progressive leadership on many issues.
Given the rhetoric in his speech about the high stakes supposedly
involved in Afghanistan, one would logically conclude he should be
sending three hundred thousand or more troops not only there, but also
western Pakistan. Nearly everyone agrees thirty thousand more soldiers
in Afghanistan will do little militarily and will probably, as Kristof
astutely observes, arouse increased nationalist resentment against the
United States. Therefore the strong rhetoric Obama used, somewhat
similar to Truman, in announcing his Truman Doctrine, seems more
plausibly to be trying to, as Senator Vandenberg advised Truman, to
scare or persuade the American people into supporting his military
escalation.
Of course, assuming Obama believes his own rhetoric, he would not be
so audacious as to send three hundred or so thousand troops, as such
an action would require bringing back the draft, resulting in his
probable defeat for re-election.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 37.Aly-Khan SatchuNairobi
KenyaDecember 3rd, 200910:16 amDear Mr. Kristof,
As ever I commend you on your passion and articulacy. It is a pleasure
to read your Articles. I surmise the President was a little boxed in
Politically. It was after all his Good War and to have bailed out at
this point [and surely the delay in the decision was partly because he
was wrestling with that] would have carried deep political risks for a
Young President.
I do agree that Education is key. In particular, with regard to the
Womenfolk. You will recall those 300 brave Women who marched through
Kabul not so long ago. I think that is a clear Black and White issue
with no shades of Grey. The Taliban are Misogynists, they have
imprisoned their Women and given that this Constituency is 50% of the
Population, I remain flummoxed that we have not developed a nuanced
Strategy to encourage and uplift them. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has a wonderful story to tell and in a curious contradiction I
seriously believe she could dig deep here. Women are fed up. Its
obvious. Lets liberate them and this will be won in no time.
We need to look at this with a 360 degree perspective because as you
say an Army is a Sledgehammer and is way too brutish a Tool to crack a
nut.
Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
Recommended by 8 Readers
45.Helge Qvam Oslo, Norway December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
Present nation building strategy is based on the successful occupation
of Germany and Japan after World War II. The countries were occupied,
constitutions amended and democratic elections held. After a few years
the economies picked up and after a decade or so the countries had
joined the modern civilized world.
With the benefit of hindsight it is safe to say that neither Germany
or Japan were subject to nation building, they were very much
functioning nation states before the occupation. What the US
occupation accomplished was to safeguard democracy and to change the
economic expansion model from military extortion to a capitalistic
free market model.
Was is close to incredible is that the same strategy is employed in
both Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries with entirely different
levels of cultural development compared to even World War II Germany.
What is needed here is a radical rethink, first of all admitting that
the process of building decent countries out of failed states like
Afghanistan is a process that will take decades, not years.
Furthermore cost must be brought down to a sustainable level. Thirdly,
in order to gain political support for a strategy that will take
decades to accomplish it is crucial that the strategy can gain support
across the political spectrum in order to avoid disruption.
The Women-Children Protection Cities (WCPC) strategy should in theory
be able to deal with the problems encountered with the present
strategy of nation building. Building schools for girls is no point if
the Taliban blows them up the day after the school is finished.
Recommended by 7 Readers
42.Sandra Kent, WA December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
They never learn from history -- whether they're bright (like Obama)
or dim (like Bush). Something happens to people when they become a
world leader. They like talking tough with generals. They like being
the head of a super power. It's a form of insanity that comes with the
job. And this war is definitely insane. I think he knows it's insane
but is doing it anyway. He'll be a one-term President because of this
choice.
Recommended by 7 Readers
46.SK Washington, DC December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
Here is the scenario I worry about the most that can allow a small rag
tage group to undermine the entire US AfPak strategy: a group of 3-5
terrorist attack a major Indian city.
The attack is similar either to the attack on the Indian parliament
(2001) or the Mumbai shootings (2008). As with these two prior
incidents the attacks have a direct or indirect Pakistan connection.
Indian response to these attacks is similar to how the country has
responded in the past: deployment of troops along the border with
Pakistan. The Pakistani’s in turn react by pulling their troops out of
Waziristan and deploying them to their border with India. Suddenly, a
group of rag tag terrorists have dealt a deathly blow to Obama’s AfPak
strategy. The year and a half of progress made by the Pakistani army
has gone down the drain. The new surge fails since the Afghan Taliban
just move across the border and waits out the new American offensive.
At the same time the Pakistani Taliban get a chance to regroup and
come after the state with a new vengeance. The Pakistani state fails
in the face of American pressure on one side, Indian army on the
eastern border and the Taliban threat from within or at best it needs
to start over again to battle the Taliban.
Has the administration prepared for this scenario?
Recommended by 6 Readers
41.The Poet McTeagle California December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
Yes, though in Mr. Mortensen's own book, he states that the locals did
not want the schools if they were funded by the US government--that
would taint them...has that changed?
Recommended by 6 Readers
16.Malik Mukhtar Multan, Pakistan December 3rd, 2009 7:28 am
This is very obvious and all these facts have discussed many times in
this leading paper.
I am sure that influential intellectuals know it more precisely since
from the beginning. Than why it is, this increase more ambiguities,
more mist, thick mist.
Recommended by 6 Readers
33.grooves California December 3rd, 200 910:14 am
It seems to me that columnists at the New York Times are completely
lost. They don't know any more what is good or what is bad for the
country. If a Republican was doing something the pundits did not like,
he was vilified. If a Democrat does the same thing and should be also
vilified, the pundits are lost. Because being mostly liberals it is
easy to vilify a Republican, but much tougher to vilify a Democrat
doing the same thing. So New york Times columnists are lost. Their
stories become just platitudes.
Recommended by 5 Readers
32.RWeber Park Slope December 3rd, 2009 10:12 am
"America’s military spending in Afghanistan alone next year will now
exceed the entire official military budget of every other country in
the world."
This + the pipeline (never mentioned by Obama) motivate the Pentagon &
its allies to hold Obama captive. Obama goes along to get along & get
reelected. Lacking any military experience, he's cowed & bullied.
Moreover, if he were as confident as JFK was in dealing with the
military, he could end like JFK did.
Recommended by 5 Readers
47.Ellen in CA Albany, CA December 3rd, 2009 10:48 am
Perhaps, Mr. Kristof, you may have recommendations about organizations
doing a good job in Afghanistan and Pakistan, providing education,
health services, community development, and so on, so that Americans
interested in doing some micro-philanthropy could invest in these
strategies. Many people are familiar with Greg Mortenson's work. I'm
also aware of the Global Fund for Women, which accepts donations and
regrants funds to organizations doing exemplary work on behalf of
women in the Third World - they have been active in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. I see there's an organization called Americans for UNFPA
that looks interesting -
Other thoughts?
Recommended by 4 Readers
39.R. Karch Silver Spring, Maryland December 3rd, 2009 10:17 am
If the U.S. really just wanted to protect Afghanistan from the
Taliban, it could simply tell Pres. Karzai he has to let Gen. Abdul
Dostum (still Deputy Defense Minister?) take charge of the problem.
Even though Gen. Dostum had been more or less on the side of the
Russians in years previous, after the brief takeover by the Taliban,
forces at his command were indispensable to the U.S.'s successfully
overthrowning the Taliban after 2001. Otherwise they may just have to
learn to live with the Taliban such as they are .
So what is the idea of more troops, even more troops for the Afghan
government, already so corrupt? But at least Pres. Karzai has stated
his opposition to the use of drone overflights that have recklessly
killed so many Afghan citizens instead of 'intended' targets. Use of
drones has also aggravated Pakistan.
One suspects influence by President Singh of India in any latest
decision to escalate physical force in Afghanistan. The following is
now quoted from a source:
' The current turmoil in Afghanistan has its origins at least partly
in a battle for influence there between India and Pakistan.
At the White House, Singh spoke of the "importance of the
international engagement in Afghanistan." India worries that Obama
would opt for a small commitment at best to Afghanistan and set in
motion a precipitous international withdrawal – an event that would
likely result in Pakistan being able to reassert greater authority
over Afghanistan. ' .......
Moreover, like the US, India fears that failure in Afghanistan would
allow terrorist groups now based in Pakistan – including Al Qaeda and
the staunchly anti-Indian Lashkar-e-Taiba – more scope and freedom to
operate
'The forces of extremism have to be defeated' in Afghanistan, Singh
said.
For his part, Obama said he would announce his decision on Afghanistan
troop levels and strategy "to the American people ...shortly.'
..... From http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1124/p02s09-usfp.html
Instead of further large commitment of troops by the U.S. and NATO, it
should be considered how otherwise the problems enunciated recently at
the State Dinner in Washington, by President Singh, could be
addressed:
helping on a local level; helping educationally; helping achieve
greater cohesion among Afghan tribes; raising the general
consciousness to a level of more co-operation, thus making whatever
the Taliban now offers, aside from their actually helpful assistance,
more actually irrelevant to the people. As it is, the Taliban tends to
galvanize Afghans' hatred for the Americans, as well as making actual
civic contributions to peoples' lives.
Why then not co-operate just enough with the Taliban so some sort of
detente can be reached? Apparently India would be
against that for its own reasons. And India does not care about how
continued strife with the Taliban, which should be alleviated,
not excacerbated, causes problems for Pakistan, its enemy. And how
would military, as opposed to more peaceable efforts, deter in any way
the 'terrorist groups' , said now to be based in Pakistan, from 'more
scope and freedom to operate' (including supposedly attacks upon
India, such as already occurred in Mumbai a few months ago) ?
Acceleration of military efforts should therefore remain very
debatable for all these reasons..
Our presence should serve as an example of what we offer: peace and a
chance for stable government, not war !
Recommended by 4 Readers
35.SaraTheGypsyLand and Sea.December 3rd, 2009 10:15 am
I think that most people do not disagree that building schools and
spreading the light of education is absolutely one of our most
powerful tools in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is certainly what we
need to place our bets on for the long run (not to mention simply
being the right thing to do). However, there is a potentially more
immediate issue here that has to be resolved, unfortunately, without a
passive solution. We cannot base our nation's tactical decisions
solely on the perceptions or misperceptions of some Afghans (which are
also subject to change for better or worse). Perhaps some of the
negative stereotypes that Afghans have of American soldiers are a
result of the forces there being unable to perform to their highest
level and help the situation fully due to insufficient support and
manpower.
If we withdrew every last man and woman in uniform now and pursued
only humanitarian causes would you feel safe? Would you feel morally
justified if the Afghans were again subjected to Taliban times? Do you
think schools alone would prevent something like that from happening
again? Do you think that the change in minds from education would take
root quickly enough that the people would make a stand against
extremist laws and even further trampling of women's rights? Or is
that just their culture and we should leave them to it? I think not.
But more importantly, I want to believe our President when he says
that our security in the US is threatened by areas in Pakistan and
Afghanistan.
Yes, extremism is everywhere and spreads in this modern age through
the internet to many places. It gets fueled by our wars in Muslim
countries and is misrepresented as a war against Islam. However, we
can't deal with everything at once. If it were not our wars, it would
be something else that America is doing wrong. It is simply easier to
blame the US for the world's problems rather than looking to the
problems that should be addressed in one's own country. It's easy for
governments to use the "blame the US" tactic so their people might not
look so closely at them. In other words, if we stopped all of our
military activities in Afghanistan today we would still bear the brunt
one the world's complaints and be a target for extremists. I also do
not think Afghanistan would be better for it either.
This is not Iraq. Though other nations grow weary of this war (as we
do) there are many that stand with us. We were attacked and we have
not fully addressed the problem until maybe now. Healthy debate is who
we are, but maybe (though it sounds incredibly idealistic) we should
support our President's decision now that it has been made and have a
little faith.
Recommended by 4 Readers
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/opinion/03kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
bademiyansubhanallah
A Good but Puzzling Speech
By DAVID BROOKS AND GAIL COLLINS
In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between
columns.
David Brooks: I was hoping to get your reaction first to the emotional
tone of President Obama’s speech, which I would call resolved but
reserved.
Gail Collins: I was thinking of calm but cornered. Still, I get your
drift.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
David Brooks: He projected great conviction I thought. On the other
hand, when Americans go to war they usually go with overwhelming force
and with a great deal of fervor. Obama announced this escalation by
emphasizing limits — limited time, limited cost, limited troops. He
didn’t talk about the moral atrocities of the Taliban or our
obligation to make life better there.
Gail Collins: That was actually what I liked most. There were rumors
he was going to talk about our obligation to help the oppressed women
of Afghanistan and that would have driven me nuts. If the White House
could have gotten a semi-stable region that kept all its women
cloistered in caves, they’d have jumped at it. Felt terrible, but
jumped nonetheless.
David Brooks: This calibrated prudence is understandable and it is
certainly characteristic of Obama, on the other hand I don’t know how
this reserve will register among the Afghans, the Taliban, American
people or our troops. The soldiers’ commitment can’t be limited
because their sacrifice might be total. Are they supposed to fight in
a calibrated spirit?
I don’t pretend to know how it will play out, but Obama’s emotional
coolness remains a signal feature.
Gail Collins: The president is one of the great speechmakers in
American history, but I don’t think he has the capacity to whip
himself into a fervor over something he doesn’t believe. If you looked
at the faces of those West Point cadets, they seemed to reflect the
same stolid determination. It reminded me of one of those war movies
when the heroes pick up their gear and march off on a mission that
they think is necessary but not likely to work out well.
David Brooks: As for the policy, personally I think it’s pretty good,
though I have no idea how Obama means to fight this war, from the top
down or the bottom up. I also think the pledge to get out in 2011 is
meaningless. None of us have any idea what will be in the country’s
interest at that time.
Gail Collins: I took the 2011 thing to be more of a threat to the
Karzai government than an actual promise to the American people. The
last thing you wanted was a president coming out and vowing to stay
there and fight until the mission is accomplished, come hell or high
water. That would be like handing Karzai a blank check.
David: In short I thought it was a good but puzzling speech. You?
Gail Collins: Pretty clear, actually. Plus deeply depressing. If I got
the message correctly, he was saying that we’re in a bad place with no
good options but to try to push things to a less-bad-although-still-
not-terrific level.
Can he do it? I have no idea. But what do I know? I thought there were
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/a-good-but-puzzling-speech/?ref=opinion
bademiyansubhanallah
The Afghanistan Speech
Published: December 1, 2009
Americans have reason to be pessimistic, if not despairing, about the
war in Afghanistan. After eight years of fighting, more than 800
American lives lost and more than 200 billion taxpayer dollars spent,
the Afghan government is barely legitimate and barely hanging on in
the face of an increasingly powerful Taliban insurgency.
In his speech Tuesday night, President Obama showed considerable
political courage by addressing that pessimism and despair head-on. He
explained why the United States cannot walk away from the war and
outlined an ambitious and high-risk strategy for driving back the
Taliban and bolstering the Afghan government so American troops can
eventually go home.
For far too long — mostly, but not only, under President George W.
Bush — Afghanistan policy has had little direction and no
accountability. Mr. Obama started to address those problems at West
Point, although the country needs to hear more about how he intends to
pay for the war and how he will decide when Afghanistan will be able
to stand on its own.
The president’s prolonged and leak-ridden policy review had fanned
doubts here and abroad about Mr. Obama’s commitment. He showed no
reluctance on Tuesday night. He said he decided to send more troops
because he is “convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan
and Pakistan,” which he called “the epicenter of the violent extremism
practiced by Al Qaeda.”
“This is no idle danger,” Mr. Obama said, “no hypothetical threat.” He
warned that new attacks were being plotted in the region, and raised
the terrifying prospect of an unchecked Al Qaeda taking over a nuclear-
armed Pakistan.
Mr. Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops — and ask
NATO allies for several thousand more — is unlikely to end the
political debate. Republicans are certain to point out that it is
still short of the 40,000 requested by the top field commander, Gen.
Stanley McChrystal, and object to the president’s pledge of a quick
drawdown. Many Democrats and the president’s own vice president had
opposed any escalation.
At this late date, we don’t know if even 100,000 American troops plus
40,000 from NATO will be enough to turn the war around. But we are
sure that continuing President Bush’s strategy of fighting on the
cheap (in January 2008, the start of Mr. Bush’s last year in office
and more than six years after the war began, there were only 27,000
American troops in Afghanistan) is a guarantee of defeat.
Mr. Obama said he planned to move those 30,000 troops in quickly —
within six months — to break the Taliban’s momentum, secure key
population centers, speed up training of Afghan security forces and
then hand over control to Afghan authorities. He said he expected to
be able to start drawing down American forces in July 2011. But he
made no promise about when all American combat troops would be gone,
saying only that the decision would be based on conditions on the
ground.
Over all, we found the president’s military arguments persuasive.
The Afghan people have no love for the Taliban’s medieval ideas and
brutality, but the Karzai government’s failure to provide basic
services or security has led many to conclude that they have no choice
but to submit. Driving the Taliban back swiftly and decisively from
key cities and regions should help change that calculation. Coupled
with an offer of negotiations, it may also peel away less committed
fighters.
There is no point in doing that unless there is a minimally credible
Afghan government to “hold” those areas. There is no chance of that
unless Mr. Karzai ends the corruption and appoints competent
officials. One of Mr. Obama’s biggest challenges is figuring out how
to goad him into doing that, without further damaging the Afghan
leader’s legitimacy, or driving him even deeper into his circle of
unsavory cronies and warlords.
In his speech Mr. Obama sought to put Mr. Karzai on notice, but more
gently than we would have. “The days of providing a blank check are
over,” he said, vowing that his government “will be clear about what
we expect from those who receive our assistance.”
We hope that the president and his aides — who failed to stop Mr.
Karzai from trying to steal his re-election — are a lot more specific
and a lot more forceful with the Afghan leader in private.
Mr. Obama faced a similar balancing act with Pakistan. He forcefully
argued that Pakistan’s survival also depends on defeating Al Qaeda and
the Taliban but gave the Pakistani government more credit than we
would have for seeing that.
Pakistani officials insist they understand the threat but question
Washington’s staying power. Mr. Obama said the United States will
support Pakistan’s “security and prosperity long after the guns have
fallen silent.” But it will take a lot more cajoling and pressure to
finally persuade Islamabad to stop hedging its bets and fully take on
the extremists.
For years President Bush sought to disguise the true cost of the
Afghan and Iraq wars. So it was a relief to hear the president put a
credible price tag on his escalation — he said it is likely to cost an
additional $30 billion next year — and promise to work with Congress
to pay for it. He and Congress need to address that issue quickly and
credibly.
We are eager to see American troops come home. We don’t know whether
Mr. Obama will be able to meet his July 2011 deadline to start drawing
down forces.
For that to happen, there will have to be a lot more success at
training Afghan forces and improving the government’s effectiveness.
Still, setting a deadline — so long as it is not set in stone — is a
sound idea. Mr. Karzai and his aides need to know that America’s
commitment is not open-ended. Mr. Obama’s generals and diplomats also
need to know that their work will be closely monitored and reviewed.
Otherwise, Mr. Obama will be hard pressed to keep his promise that
this war, already the longest in American history, will not go on
forever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02wed1.html?ref=opinion
chhotemianinshallah
By Aryn Baker / Kabul Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009
President Obama addresses the nation on his Afghanistan strategy at
the military academy West Point in New York on Dec. 1, 2009
Christopher Morris / VII for TIME
In his long-awaited strategy speech for Afghanistan, President Barack
Obama clearly and forcibly repeated his objectives from his original
plan in March — denying al-Qaeda a safe haven and reversing Taliban
momentum. But he added one detail that stunned many Afghans. All this
would be achieved within 18 months, at which point, it is assumed, the
Afghan government would be able to stand on its own and the Afghan
security forces — who are a far cry from the disciplined rows of
uniformed cadets who faced Obama on Tuesday evening — would be able to
take on the job of securing the battle-torn nation. West Point cadets
are some of the smartest and best-trained soldiers in the U.S. It is a
blithe denial of the very real difficulties on the ground in
Afghanistan.
(See pictures of the Afghan National Army.)
The 18-month timeline came as a shock to many Afghans, who had hoped
for — and who had believed in — previous statements by world leaders
that the international community was in it for the long haul. Even if
development projects continue long after, fear is rife that the
Taliban will simply wait out the surge, only to return re-energized
and triumphant once the numbers of international forces have dwindled,
even if it is only a return to present numbers. As for those Afghans
sitting on the fence, they now see less security in joining the
government's side, which may once again be abandoned when the U.S.
focuses its attention elsewhere.
(See what Barack Obama left out of his speech: how to grow the Afghan
army.)
Pakistanis, too, are likely to take the 18-month timeline as a signal
that they should continue to hedge their bets and support the Afghan
Taliban in the tribal areas along the border in order to foil a much
feared expansion of Indian influence on their northwestern flank. At
the moment U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan believe they can
continue the battle despite Pakistan's tolerance of the Afghan Taliban
leadership within its borders. Should Pakistani policy move toward
active aid and support, however, the task of defeating the Afghan
insurgency would become impossibly difficult.
(See Europe's response to the call for more troops.)
Obama's statement that he would not pursue nation-building, though
most likely tailored for his domestic audience, appeared to Afghans as
little more than a commitment for greater military involvement to the
detriment of development. "Sending in more troops is not a bad idea,"
says Abdul Jabar Sabit, Afghanistan's former attorney general. "But it
is not the remedy for a deteriorating situation." If anything, he
points out, a military surge should be used only after there is a
government in place that is worth protecting. If Afghans are not
committed to their government, if they don't believe its promises and
if they don't see that it can deliver, the deployment of more foreign
soldiers will be a waste of time, and lives. "One of the reasons that
the Taliban are able to get a lot of assistance from the people is
that the local authorities are corrupt," says Sabit. "Let's fight them
first, then the Americans can come in and fight the terrorists."
Of course, Obama did speak of strengthening governance, though with a
pointed message that "the days of providing a blank check [to Afghan
President Hamid Karzai] are over." Still, how he would do so, and what
would happen if Karzai's government did not clean up its corrupt ways,
was unclear. Officials say the most likely punishment would be a
withdrawal of U.S. and foreign funding to those ministries that are
clearly corrupt or that underperform. As for development, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, speaking on Monday in New York, said
Washington's "goals in Afghanistan include providing the government
with the support that it needs to take full responsibility for its own
country. That makes civilian efforts as vital as military operations
and of longer duration." To do so, she and Obama envision a "civilian
surge" of agriculturists, rule-of-law experts and development
strategists that should be in place by early 2010. As part of that
expansion, the Kabul embassy has plans to expand into a neighboring
compound and has already signed a long-term lease on property
designated to be a new consulate for the northern city of Mazar-i-
Sharif. Plans for another consulate, in the western city of Herat, are
also in the works.
But for the past eight years, foreign experts have been tasked with
similar, expensive development objectives with little return. There
needs to be a renewed commitment toward enabling Afghans to do the
work themselves, without having to rely on foreign advisers. That will
take more than 18 months and require substantial investment not just
in facilities and pilot projects, but also in actual and widespread
training and education. Special representative of the U.N. Secretary-
General for Afghanistan Kai Eide emphasized in a frank talk with
journalists on Tuesday that the foreign community should focus on a
transition strategy, rather than an exit strategy. "If we are to
deliver services to the people, it can't be done by international
parallel structures. It has to be done by Afghan institutions. That's
going to take time, but the longer we wait, the more time it will
take."
While schools have been a much-touted success in Afghanistan, the
reality is that education and literacy levels are abysmally low. It
matters little how many aid dollars are spent on school buildings when
the teachers inside operate at a reading level only slightly higher
than that of their students. A fraction of the money spent on
expensive foreign development consultants or military assets could be
invested in nationwide literacy programs with far greater returns. For
those who complain that education programs take at least a generation
to mature, imagine what Afghanistan would be like today if there had
been widespread investment in literacy and education eight years ago.
There would be not only fewer complaints about Afghan capacity, but
also fewer problems with corruption, which flourishes when people lack
education about their rights and venues of redress. "I'm sorry, Obama
Administration, but your troop surge isn't going to work," says a
senior U.N. official. "Unless you face up to the mistakes made in the
early days, it's like polishing an apple that's rotten at the core."
Rafiullah Shavzkhil, an employee at the Ministry of Finance, worries
that focusing on the number of foreign troops, rather than the quality
of their Afghan experience and intelligence, is as much a mistake as
not sending troops at all. Twice his uncle, a prominent member of his
community, has been detained by U.S. forces (once at Guantánamo for
five years) due to false information planted by rivals, says
Shavzkhil. "The problem with foreign forces is in the system, not in
the numbers. If the U.S. troops keep listening to the wrong guys, or
if they don't check the information they are receiving, they will
continue to harm innocent people, and that only makes the problem
worse."
Perhaps the highest-risk strategy outlined in Obama's agenda is his
hope that within 18 months, Afghan security forces will be able to
take a greater role in protecting the country. When Karzai took a new
oath of office at his inauguration ceremony in Kabul last month, he
promised that by the end of his five-year term, Afghan security forces
would be "capable of taking the lead in ensuring security and
stability across the country." Accelerating the process in order to
achieve the necessary number of well-trained Afghan soldiers — ideally
estimated to be 134,000 troops, compared with the current 90,000 — by
the summer of 2011 would require roughly 5,000 new recruits a month.
Last month alone, the Ministry of Defense missed its recruiting goal
by more than 2,000 troops, and attrition rates over the past year were
1 in 4.
And then there's remuneration. Both Afghan soldiers and police
officers were recently granted a 40% pay rise, bringing the base
salary for a new police officer or soldier to about $165 a month —
almost on par with what the Taliban offer their fighters. Like many
Afghans, many of the new army recruits are uneducated and illiterate,
so it will be difficult to develop the capabilities that are essential
for effectively running an army or a police force, such as seamless
logistics planning, accurate weapons training or even clear police
reports.
"Let me be clear: none of this will be easy," Obama told his audience.
"The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly,
and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an
enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world." In
a stirring speech peppered with noble goals, firm resolve and
idealism, that may have been his most concrete statement of the
evening.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1944599,00.html
chhotemianinshallah
By Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009
German soldiers partol in Mazar-i-Sharif as part of the NATO security
force.
Michael Kappeler / AFP / Getty
In spite of crumbling public support for the mission in Afghanistan,
the U.S.'s NATO allies should be able to muster an extra 5,000 troops
to join President Barack Obama's surge, officials at the alliance say.
But this will still fall well short of the 10,000 troops Washington
has been seeking. And it is likely to come with demands for a more
robust strategy to build civil institutions, including benchmarks on
stamping out fraud and corruption in the Afghan government.
In his speech announcing a surge of 30,000 U.S. troops Tuesday,
Obama's made it clear that he expects more help from his allies,
insisting that extra NATO troops was a test of the alliance's
credibility. In turn, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
said he was confident 5,000 extra troops could be found. "This is not
a U.S. mission alone: America's allies in NATO have shared the risks,
costs and burdens of this mission from the beginning," said Rasmussen,
who has traveled around Europe in recent weeks to drum up more
military muscle.
(See pictures of life in the National Afghan Army.)
Some NATO officials, though, say that even getting to 5,000 extra
troops could be hopeful. That number may include troops that were
already deployed as reinforcements for Afghanistan's presidential
elections last August. And many NATO countries, struggling with a
deeply skeptical public, have already indicated they want to scale
back their military involvement in Afghanistan.
So far, only Britain has come up with a plan to send extra troops —
about 500 — while the other major European powers, notably Germany and
France, are reluctant to commit any. Surveys consistently show that
most European voters feel the Afghan mission is failing and are
opposed to any additional deployments. In Britain, around 70% of the
public favors an early withdrawal. The global economic crisis is also
setting new budgetary constraints on government expenditure. "I don't
see anyone sending massive numbers. Most countries are under pressure
to announce exit strategies," says Shada Islam, Senior Program
Executive at the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think tank.
"It's such a confused narrative about what we are doing in
Afghanistan. Nobody can explain what we're doing, and people think
there is nothing to show for the billions of dollars plowed into
this."
(See pictures of British soldiers in Afghanistan.)
There are currently more than 110,000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan,
anchored by a 68,000-strong U.S. force. The other members of the 43-
nation, NATO-led coalition provide some 42,000 troops. The Afghan army
currently numbers about 94,000, but the government wants a force of
134,000 by October 2010, rising to 232,000 by 2013.
Besides the extra troops from the U.K., Italy, Georgia, Montenegro,
South Korea and Turkey, have said they are ready to send more troops —
though none have indicated numbers. Poland, Spain and Slovakia are
thought to be considering reinforcements, along with non-European
allies like New Zealand and Japan. But the Netherlands has already
announced it is pulling out its 2,160 troops next year, and Canada
will withdraw its 2,800-strong force by the end of 2011.
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
French President Nicolas Sarkozy welcomed Obama's speech, calling it
"courageous." But Sarkozy has already pledged that he "won't send an
additional soldier" to bolster the nearly 3,750-strong French
contingent. (NATO officials hope he may send more military or police
trainers.)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is thought to be mulling
reinforcements to Germany's current deployment of 4,365, but she will
wait until after an international conference on Afghanistan, set for
late January in London, before announcing more resources. "The
timeline is diminishing. European support will last for a year, maybe
two," says Greg Austin, vice president of program development and
rapid response at the EastWest Institute. "But in the long term, it is
not sustainable for the U.S. and its NATO allies to bear the burden.
There has to be a more hard-nosed diplomacy to mobilize neighboring
countries. Countries like India and Pakistan will be able to better
provide police training in Afghanistan than Denmark."
(See pictures of Afghanistan's dangerous Korengal Valley.)
Europe has also been vocal in its frustrations over rebuilding efforts
in Afghanistan. A report prepared for E.U. governments in October said
the current nation-building efforts have been too slow, with political
reform and clean government almost nonexistent in spite of eight years
of U.S. and European assistance. "The situation in Afghanistan is
deteriorating," the report said.
Even the E.U.'s reconstruction efforts have fallen short. Europe has
committed $12 billion in aid to Afghanistan over the past eight years
to help projects like rural development, governance, health, mine
removal and human rights. But it is still struggling to deliver the
400 police trainers it committed to deliver years ago. "More troops
are not the solution. The highest priority is not military, but civil
development," says Thijs Berman, a Dutch member in the European
Parliament and head of its Afghanistan delegation. He says the best
way the international community can help is to fight corruption and
the resurgence of the opium trade. "Terrorism can only be fought with
credible government, with developments the population believes in."
(Read the full transcript of Obama's speech.)
U.S. officials will get to hear European concerns over the next few
days in a series of key meetings on Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton will
be in Brussels to secure commitments from governments at a meeting of
Foreign Ministers on Thursday and Friday. Richard Holbrooke, U.S.
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan was in Brussels
Wednesday to meet key E.U. officials. And military officers will also
meet in the southern Belgian town of Mons on Dec. 7 to discuss the
mission's resources. They should all lower expectations about how much
Europe is willing to contribute.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1944596,00.html
chhotemianinshallah
By Mark Thompson / Washington Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009
Afghan soldiers march during a graduation ceremony in Kabul on Oct.
18, 2008
Manpreet Romana / AFP / Getty
President Barack Obama has tied his decision to order 30,000 more U.S.
troops to Afghanistan to a pledge that they'll start returning home in
2011. But the President's West Point speech Dec. 1 was mute on his
plans for the growing Afghan army, which remains the best — some would
say only — way to bring home American personnel. His vagueness on the
question of increasing the Afghan forces was understandable: the U.S.
and its allies have already boosted target troop levels for the Afghan
army four times, and the U.S. commander there, General Stanley
McChrystal, wants the target number doubled yet again.
There's no sign, at least publicly, of a surge in growth of the Afghan
army. Obama on Tuesday night steered clear of dealing with
McChrystal's August call to hike the combined size of the Afghan army
and national police to 400,000. Current plans call for the boosting of
the Afghan army to 134,000 troops and the national police force to
82,000 by 2011. McChrystal warned that those totals were insufficient
and called for boosting the army to 240,000 ("to increase pressure on
the insurgency in all threatened areas in the country") and the police
to 160,000.
(See pictures of the U.S. Marines' new offensive in Afghanistan.)
On Tuesday afternoon, a senior White House official who declined to be
quoted by name dismissed McChrystal's call for a bigger Afghan force.
"We know that number's out there," the official said, without
mentioning that it was put out there by the top U.S. commander in
Afghanistan. James Dubik, a retired Army general who trained the Iraqi
military and is now a senior fellow at the independent Institute for
the Study of War, argues that the Obama Administration needs to
embrace McChrystal's goal. "There's a significant psychological effect
on the Taliban if we announce we're going to build an Afghan security
force of 400,000," says Dubik. "We're going to miss that
opportunity."
Obama's message to West Point cadets was less specific: "We must
strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and
government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's
future." McChrystal issued a statement endorsing Obama's plan, saying
its push to train Afghan fighters "will be the main focus of our
campaign in the months ahead." The Afghan national army, which jumped
from 6,000 troops in 2003 to 24,000 in 2004, has been growing by about
1,500 troops monthly over the past year. (Iraq's security forces,
protecting a smaller population than Afghanistan's, now total 600,000
men.)
But the challenges of rebuilding an Afghan national army of any size —
for the fourth time in 150 years — are daunting. Afghanistan, torn by
war over a generation, has missed the computer revolution that most
militaries now take for granted. The Hindu Kush mountain range
splinters much of the country into isolated valleys run by warlords,
marginalizing any central government authority. And as the 219th
poorest nation among the world's 229, Afghanistan simply can't afford
to pay for a big military. Afghan forces today are largely slipshod
and corrupt, U.S. officers who have served with them say. Technically
they seem capable of doing little more than basic daytime operations,
and they have yet to master the bookkeeping vital for any military
force to keep track of itself.
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
In fact, say many U.S. officers, the Afghan mindset works against
building a military force. Afghans have a "God-willing mentality" that
"delays progress for all routine and major actions," U.S. Army Colonel
Scot Mackenzie wrote in a study for the Army War College last year.
Information is power, and senior leaders hold on to it tightly. They
prefer faxes to e-mails because they like "paper in their hands, as
opposed to data on a disk," Mackenzie said. Such tendencies freeze
"subordinates into doing nothing until specifically ordered," he
added. "Taking risk or initiative has historically been seen as a good
way to wind up in prison or dead."
Joint U.S.-Afghan operations are plagued by mistrust, with the living
quarters of allied and Afghan troops separated by walls, razor wire,
guarded gates and machine-gun nests. "Currently, coalition forces eat,
sleep and play in separate spaces from the people they are trying to
train," U.S. Marine Captain Jason Moore noted in a report earlier this
year for the Corps' Command and Staff College at Quantico, Va. In
part, that's because Taliban sympathizers in the Afghan military have
shot and killed U.S. troops. "Intentional or not, it conveys a sense
of distrust, hostility and disrespect to their hosts."
While President Obama is setting timetables for Afghanistan, hoping to
start bringing U.S. troops home by 2011, Mackenzie's words note that
the very concept of deadlines is largely foreign to Afghans. "Time is
not seen as a valuable resource in Afghan society," he wrote.
"Correspondingly, the use of calendars at all levels is virtually
nonexistent."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1944556,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
The Obama strategy is more about the US than Afghanistan
Business Standard / New Delhi December 04, 2009, 0:29 IST
Barack Obama has fallen into the trap of trying to please all shades
of domestic opinion on what his Afghan war strategy should be. He has
given his general most of the additional troops that were sought, but
also announced a date when US troops will begin to leave the country.
He has indicated that more action will be focused on Pakistan,
promised that country a more constructive partnership, and also sought
a more active role by India in Afghanistan. Everyone can, therefore,
see the positives in the presidential package, but they can also see
the negatives — chief among them being the obvious point that the
Taliban has been told it just has to wait for a couple of years before
making its next big move. Pakistan too is unlikely to cut links with
the Taliban, now that it knows the Americans are not staying for very
long. Mr Obama, therefore, has ended up undermining his country’s
position even as he has decided to send in more of his troops.
From India’s point of view, the implicit, though partial, recognition
that the heart of the problem is in Pakistan and not Afghanistan is a
welcome development because it recognises the reality. The signal that
drone attacks might also take place in Baluchistan (where key Taliban
leaders are believed to be hiding) is particularly welcome. But this
is overshadowed by the announcement of a date for the start of
American withdrawal from Afghanistan, in mid-2011, something that is
clearly timed with the 2012 presidential elections in mind. The
question is whether the Taliban will have been “defeated” by then (if
defeat is an objective) and — more pertinently — whether an Afghan
army can be trained in time to take the place of the 130,000 foreign
troops who will leave. On the basis of how things have gone so far in
this war, the prognosis is not very hopeful. Critics will say that Mr
Obama’s strategy could turn out in the end to be nothing more than the
old trick used in Vietnam: “Declare victory and run”.
American objectives will be limited, understandably, to making sure
that the US does not get attacked again from an Afghan base. No US
president will want to take on an open-ended war in a distant land.
But India’s interests are more substantive, in a country that can
legitimately be considered to be a part of its neighbourhood, and the
prospect of American withdrawal in an unsettled country raises
important questions. The prime minister is believed to have turned
down Mr Obama’s request that India train Afghan troops in Afghanistan.
That may be fine, but New Delhi will have to think seriously about its
future strategy in the event that the US withdraws before the security
situation in Afghanistan has stabilised.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/surgewithdraw/378527/
...and I am Sid harth
bademiyansubhanallah
By KATHY GANNON (AP) – 8 hours ago
KABUL — President Hamid Karzai put a brave face Thursday on President
Barack Obama's decision to start pulling out troops in mid-2011,
telling The Associated Press in his first public response that it will
push Afghans to take control of their own destiny.
But he blamed the United States for stalling peace overtures in the
past and offered to talk directly with the Taliban's top leader.
Karzai appeared relaxed and confident throughout the exclusive AP
interview — the Afghan president's first remarks since Obama's
announcement Tuesday that he will send 30,000 more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan by next fall with the anticipation that they would start
coming home in July 2011.
Karzai said the deadline, just 18 months away, is "not a concern for
us — it is rather an impetus."
"For Afghans it's good that we are facing a deadline," he said. "We
must begin to stand on our own feet. Even if it is with our own meager
means — whatever those means may be. And we must begin to defend our
own country.
"If we, the Afghan people, cannot defend our country, ourselves,
against an aggressor from within or without, then no matter what the
rest of the world does with us, it will not produce the desired
results," he said during the one-hour interview at the turreted brick
palace in the heavily guarded heart of the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Republicans have objected to the setting of a hard deadline for
withdrawing troops for fear it would encourage the Taliban to play a
waiting game and say Obama must be willing to delay the start of a
pullout if security deteriorates.
But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert
Gates told U.S. lawmakers Thursday that the July 2011 date is
flexible. The White House said Obama set this date to make sure
Karzai's government knows it has limited time to reform itself and
take charge of security.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for a timetable for
training Afghan security forces, battling police corruption and
appointing nearly 400 provincial and district governors.
Karzai called Brown's remarks "very unfortunate and very artificial."
"It is extremely insulting," he said. "But it doesn't affect me and it
doesn't affect the Afghan people."
The president offered talks with the Taliban, including its one-eyed
leader, Mullah Omar, who has a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head. Yet
Karzai said overtures stood little chance of success without the
support of the United States and its international partners.
He said his previous attempts to negotiate with insurgents were not
fruitful because "sections of the international community undermined —
not backed — our efforts."
On Tuesday, Obama said the U.S. must "open the door" to Taliban
members who abandon violence as a way to turn the tide of an eight-
year war that has killed more than 850 members of the U.S. military.
In Brussels on Thursday, Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special
representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, said reconciliation had
been "on the back burner (but) it's now moving to the front burner."
But Karzai said he wants guarantees that those who are lured away from
the Taliban aren't subjected to intimidation and their homes not
raided by international forces or their Afghan partners.
Karzai also said he was fed up with the relentless criticism by world
leaders of his government and the contentious August elections that
returned him to power for another five years.
He said the allegations of corruption were exaggerated and that the
criticism was motivated by political considerations. He accused
"Western political circles" of trying to deny him re-election.
Karzai was forced to accept a runoff election after U.N.-backed
auditors threw out nearly a third of his votes in the first ballot.
Karzai was declared the winner last month after his sole challenger
dropped out of the race, claiming a second ballot would be as
fraudulent as the first.
"The Afghan elections were the best under the circumstances," he said.
"We had no security in the south of the country. European observers
called for the elections to be canceled even before the votes were
counted.
"I am very sorry that the vote was insulted. I am very, very sorry and
it angers me a lot that some Western political circles are still
insulting the Afghans and calling this election fraudulent in order to
weaken me or to weaken the Afghan government."
Karzai said he had no problems dealing with Holbrooke, with whom he
reportedly had a heated meeting the day after the first round of the
presidential election.
"I work government to government," Karzai said. "I don't work based on
personal friendships. I want to have personal friendships. I have some
personal friendships. I have no problem at all with Mr. Holbrooke, or
any other official in any other government."
On other issues, he said the United States should promote good
relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan — both of which face
challenges from the Taliban and other Islamic extremist movements.
Obama said a partnership between the U.S. and Pakistan was essential
to bringing peace to the region.
Karzai also brushed off a remark by Sen. John McCain, a Republican
from Arizona, who said last month: "Hamid Karzai knows very well that
if U.S. troops leave, he'll be leaving shortly thereafter, or find
himself probably assassinated."
"If Karzai is the leader of the Afghan people through a genuine
election ... he should have no fear for his life once the foreign
forces leave," Karzai said.
And the president said he had exhausted the discussion about Ahmed
Wali Karzai, his controversial half brother who leads the provincial
council in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali Karzai has
denied a raft of allegations, including that he is on the CIA payroll
and is involved in drug trafficking.
"I have spoken to Western officials in the last five years repeatedly,
repeatedly, repeatedly. I have written to them and they all come back
to say they have nothing. They have nothing on him," Karzai said.
Karzai noted the irony of being urged to improve the rule of law in
Afghanistan at the same time as being asked to oust his brother from
his post.
"We're trying to make the president of Afghanistan behave like an
absolute ruler," Karzai said. "The constitution does not allow the
Afghan president to expel people from their districts."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai speaks to The Associated Press at
the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009.
Karzai said that he would do "whatever it takes" to bring peace,
including meeting with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. (AP Photo/Alexandre
Meneghini)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqcU8pyrVDkS-w5wP7emPjz3BaggD9CC4CEG0
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-03 03:46:36
MOSCOW, Dec. 2 (Xinhua) -- Moscow welcomes the revised U.S.
strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Russian Foreign Ministry
said on Wednesday.
"Moscow has taken a generally positive attitude to the key
provisions of the new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
announced by U.S. President Barack Obama," a foreign ministry
statement said.
"Russia, as well as the international community, would like to see
Afghanistan become as soon as possible a self-sufficient, prosperous
and independent state freed from drug crime and terrorism," the
ministry said.
After months of review, U.S. President Obama on Tuesday renewed
his strategy for Afghanistan by sending 30,000 additional troops to
the country in a decisive war against al-Qaida network and
extremists.
The military supplement will bring the number of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan to nearly 100,000.
Editor: Yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/03/content_12578537.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
A new opinion poll shows the American public growing more isolationist
and less supportive of U.S. missions abroad.
Michael Bowman | Washington 04 December 2009
U.S troops stationed in Afghanistan (File)
"When the economy dips, so does the public's enthusiasm for activity
abroad," says James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations
Studies.
A new opinion poll shows the American public growing more
isolationist, less supportive of U.S. missions abroad, less certain of
American clout on the world stage and more concerned about rising
economic powers like China. Analysts say the survey numbers present a
challenge for President Barack Obama as he tries to rally the nation
in support of a troop surge in Afghanistan.
Isolationist sentiment is on the rise in the United States, according
to a poll conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for
the People & the Press. Forty-nine percent of Americans, the survey
says, believe the United States should "mind its own business" and let
other nations get along on their own. That is up from 30 percent in
2002.
"The American public is focused on a bad economy and also feeling
badly about the world," said Pew President Andrew Kohut. "There are
two wars that the public thinks are not going well [Iraq and
Afghanistan]."
Rising isolationism does not surprise Council on Foreign Relations
Studies director James Lindsay.
"When the economy dips, so does the public's enthusiasm for activity
abroad," he said. "The public understandably wants its politicians to
worry about fixing problems at home and is less worried about fixing
problems overseas."
Lindsay says a growing preoccupation with domestic concerns has
implications for U.S. foreign policy in general and President Obama's
new Afghan war strategy, in particular.
"The president is sailing into a stiff wind," added Lindsay.
Recent public opinion surveys have shown declining support for sending
more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The Pew poll, conducted before
President Obama's Afghan strategy announcement this week, shows only
32 percent backing for an expanded U.S. military mission.
Kohut says Americans are increasingly skeptical about U.S.
intervention abroad.
"We had eight years of an assertive national foreign policy [under
former President George W. Bush]. And that foreign policy, in the end,
was judged to be unsuccessful," he said. "Coming away from an
experience like that, it would lead some Americans to believe that we
are going to play a less influential, less powerful role in the
world."
And which nations do Americans see as filling the vacuum created by a
perceived loss of U.S. clout on the world stage?
"The public takes a less-benign view of China's rise. Fifty-three
percent [of Americans] see it as a threat, its emerging power as a
threat to the United States," said Kohut. "Although it is not really
a negative attitude towards China, there is worry. And, more
dramatically, for the first time a plurality of Americans think that
China - not the United States - is the world's leading economic
power."
But if such pessimism and isolationist instincts are fed by current
U.S. economic troubles, could an economic recovery reverse the trend?
"What bad economic times can take away, it can give back. And if the
American economy turns around and we see a sustained period of
economic growth, I would expect to see these poll numbers change yet
again," said Lindsay.
American public opinion also appears to be diverging from that of U.S.
foreign policy experts. A recent poll of 600 members of the Council
on Foreign Relations, or CFR, shows 50 percent backing for a troop
surge in Afghanistan, and 58 percent listing China as an important
future U.S. ally. Seventy-eight percent of CFR members see China as a
minimal threat or no threat at all to the United States.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Poll-Shows-US-Isolationist-Sentiment-Growing-78523627.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Congressional leaders express concern over troops levels, mission
importance
Dan Robinson | Capitol Hill 03 December 2009
Photo: AP
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, (R) and Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton testify on Capitol Hill, 03 Dec 2009, before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan
Top U.S. defense and diplomatic officials are facing a second day of
tough questioning in the U.S. Congress over President Barack Obama's
revised Afghan war strategy that includes the deployment of an
additional 30,000 troops.
Congress will need to approve an additional $30 billion needed to fund
the strategy over the next year.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Democrat John Kerry
expressed concern about whether there are enough Afghan troops to
partner with American troops.
Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee, said
more discussion is needed on whether the mission is so important to
national security that it requires huge spending increases, and the
deployment of troops that make up a major portion of the U.S. armed
forces. He also said it is not clear how the troop expansion deals
with the problem of Taliban and al-Qaida safe havens in Pakistan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, all testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Thursday.
Under the plan, American troops are to start pulling out in July 2011
- a goal questioned by some lawmakers, including Republican John
McCain, who said Wednesday that setting an "arbitrary date" to begin a
withdrawal only emboldens al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Secretary of State Clinton told the panel Thursday the U.S. will work
with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to eliminate safe haves for
those plotting attacks against the United States and its interests and
allies. She said the United States is concerned about corruption
within the Afghan government and will work to solve that problem.
Defense Secretary Gates testified that any failure of the
international effort in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban "takeover" of
much of the country, and Taliban areas could once again become a
sanctuary for al-Qaida.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General
Stanley McChrystal, addressed Afghan lawmakers to sell the new plan.
The first of the additional U.S. troops are to be deployed in weeks.
They will focus on fighting the Taliban, securing key population
centers and training Afghan security forces. The extra deployments
will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to about 100,000.
In announcing the strategy Tuesday, Mr. Obama said more troops will
help accelerate the transfer security responsibility to Afghan forces
and allow U.S. forces to begin leaving the country by July 2011.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Officials-Questioned-Afghanistan-03DEC09--78417682.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Troops target supply routes in the southern town of Now Zad. They meet
little opposition, but face a much more dangerous operation ahead.
December 4, 2009 | 6:57 a.m.
Reporting from Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan - Hundreds of Marines and
Afghan soldiers this morning descended on a virtually empty city in
southern Afghanistan to cut off supply routes for Taliban fighters who
have taken refuge there.
The Marines and Afghans want to starve out the insurgents holed up in
Now Zad, which was once a vibrant city of 30,000 but now is a virtual
ghost town because years of fighting.
The assault, named "Cobra's Anger," may prove to be a warmup for an
even larger, more complex and more dangerous assault on Marja, a
spread-out, populous city where many Taliban fighters and narcotics
middlemen fled after Marines this summer descended on nearby villages.
In Now Zad, Marines had to contend with roadside bombs that Taliban
militants buried in anticipation of the Americans' arrival. Even more
such bombs are expected to await troops when the Marja assault begins.
"Marja is that last major sanctuary in Helmand province, the last
place where the enemy has freedom of movement," said Brig. Gen. Larry
Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. "We're
going to take that away from him."
Nicholson compared the prospective battle in Marja to the fight in
late 2004 to clear barricaded insurgents in the Iraqi city of
Fallouja.
But Marja is much larger than Fallouja and split up with irrigation
canals that will make troop and vehicle movements difficult. Also, it
is heavily populated, raising the specter of civilian casualties if
the Marines begin a vigorous house-by-house assault.
Still, Nicholson said the only issue is when Marja will be emptied of
insurgents, not if. No timetable has been announced.
In Now Zad, Marines from the Twentynine Palms-based 3rd Battalion, 4th
Regiment and the Okinawa, Japan-based 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion met
only light opposition -- which may not be the case in Marja.
No Marine casualties were reported in the first stage of the Now Zad
assault. Some of the troops descended onto key supply routes via the
Marines' tilt-rotor Osprey helicopters, their first use in an assault.
In July, about 4,500 Marines suddenly deployed to Helmand province,
which has been a Taliban stronghold and a major poppy-growing region.
After weeks of firefights, militants were pushed out of villages, many
fleeing to Marja.
With the Taliban gone, the U.S. and Britain began an aggressive
counterinsurgency program of road building, irrigation canal cleaning,
and repair of schools, clinics and mosques. Councils of elders were
organized in an effort to give the Afghans a sense of confidence in
their government.
Marja has functioned as a haven for Taliban, with assassins returning
by night into villages. Two members of the Nawa district council were
assassinated, with Taliban fighters as the major suspects.
Clearing Marja, Nicholson said, will enhance the progress already seen
in most areas. "We want to keep that moment going," he said.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghanistan-marines5-2009dec05,0,5414280.story
bademiyansubhanallah
US/Pacific Levin: Economy Too Poor For War Tax
WASHINGTON (CBS) --
Senator Carl Levin said a war tax on higher-earning Americans is not
out of the question to support a surge of troops in Afghanistan, but
believed such a tax is now too late.
Face The Nation/CBS
Senator Carl Levin said a war tax on higher-earning Americans is not
out of the question to support a surge of troops in Afghanistan, but
believed such a tax is now too late.
His comments on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday came in the wake of a
proposal by Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., for a "war tax" to pay for the
Afghan war - particularly in light of President Obama's anticipated
increase in U.S. troop strength there.
"In the middle of a recession we're probably not going to be able to
increase taxes to pay for it," Levin, D-Mich., told CBS News' Harry
Smith. "There should have been, as far as I'm concerned, tax increases
for upper bracket folks who did so well during the Bush years - that's
where the tax increases should have taken place. But that should have
happened some time ago.
"But in the middle of this recession, I don't think you're going to be
able successfully or fairly to add a tax burden to middle-income
people," Levin said. "I think you could tax the upper brackets,
$250,000 or more, but I don't think middle income America is in a
position now where they could pay additional taxes because the
economic stress is so great here."
Smith asked if the U.S. would still have troops in Afghanistan, if
Osama bin Laden has been captured or killed there in 2001.
[A new report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says in
December 2001 bin Laden was "within the grasp" of the American
military in Afghanistan who chose not to pursue him with massive
force; consequently the terrorist leader "walked unmolested out of
Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area,"
the report said.]
"Maybe not - I would say there would be a good chance we would not
have forces or need to have forces there," Levin said. "But this has
been kind of well known for some time. We took our eye off the ball.
Instead of moving in on him at Tora Bora, the previous administration
decided to move its forces to Iraq.
"It was a mistake then."
He said whether President Obama gets Democratic support for his
announcement Tuesday to increase troops in Afghanistan depends on the
purpose of the mission and whether additional Americans there would
help build numbers in the Afghan army.
"If the mission is, as I hope, trying to very quickly build up the
Afghan army both in size and in capability and in equipment, if the
mission is to give them the capacity to take on the Taliban - and I
believe that will be the principal mission stated - that would be one
important thing to happen for Democratic support.
"But the second thing which I think there's greater question on is why
the additional troops would help increase the size of the Afghan
army," he said. "When I was in Afghanistan, I was told that the
greatest need in Afghanistan is for more Afghan troops . . . The
Marine captain says that the Achilles heel in Afghanistan is the
shortage of Afghan troops."
The Senator argued that building the Afghan ranks is very "do-able."
"The Afghans are known to be fighters," he said. "And there's not that
kind of ethnic division that existed in Iraq.
"The question, it seems to me, is not whether we should send more
mentors and trainers; we should. The issue is how would additional
combat forces, additional Marines, for instance, increase the speed of
the build-up of the Afghan army? That's what I think the president is
going to need to explain because the key to success in Afghanistan is
the Afghan army taking on the Taliban."
Levin said it is also important for President Obama to keep pressure
on the government of President Karzai to end corruption.
On the question of health care reform legislation, Smith asked Levin
if he believed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has the 60
votes needed to pass?
"I think there's a decent chance that we'll be able to get 60 votes,"
he replied. "The leader here, Harry Reid, has done a really good job
of getting 60 votes to jump that first hurdle which was a procedural
hurdle. But I won't underestimate his capability to get us to 60 votes
on final passage."
Even with a public option?
"Probably," Levin said, if it's one that states can opt out from.
((c) MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
http://cbs2.com/politics/war.tax.carl.2.1339284.html
bademiyansubhanallah
by Meteor Blades
Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 02:16:04 PM PST
Add David Obey to the increasingly vocal foes of General Stanley
McChrystal's proposed escalation of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a
group that includes Arlen Specter and the 57 Congresspeople who signed
Massachusetts Congressmen James McGovern's letter to the President.
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into
Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News
in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop
commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."
Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely
opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if
Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a
"war surtax" -- to pay for it.
"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement,"
Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to
pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of
the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our
own economy."
Obey isn't alone in proposing a tax for the war. Senator Carl Levin,
who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has suggested putting
a levy on upper-income brackets for this purpose:
An "additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more
than $200,000 or $250,000" a year, could fund more troops, Levin, a
Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s
"Political Capital With Al Hunt," airing this weekend.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each
additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total
that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. "They
have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay
for it if we possibly can" instead of increasing the federal debt
load, the senator said.
Since Levin opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan, his tax
proposal, like Obey's, seems actually designed to put up a roadblock
to escalation, because the chances of such a tax being passed are slim
to nil. The chances of blocking an escalation, if that is the path
President Obama chooses, may be equally unlikely. During the Iraq war,
congressional foes never could get a majority to cut off funding for
everything except withdrawal. Such a move would be even less likely
for U.S. military action in Afghanistan, a war that has always had
more support in Congress and among rank-and-file Americans than Iraq
did.
Meanwhile, the costs keep rising. As David Dayen reports, U.S. special
forces may be spending as much as $1.3 billion to fund anti-Taliban
Afghan militia as was done in the Anbar Awakening in Iraq. As Dayen
points out, the last time the United States funded local fighters in
Afghanistan, it "created the structure for Osama bin Laden to
flourish..."
This spending, as well as Levin's and Obey's tax idea, spotlight a
continuing problem - figuring out how much the war actually costs. In
addition to the $65 billion allocated in the 2010 fiscal year budget
for military purposes in Afghanistan, the Pentagon is seeking
"emergency" funds that could run as much as $50 billion. It is
spending billions of already-approved dollars for what appears to be
permanent bases there. If Afghanistan really is to be the focal point
of "the long war," Obey and Levin better make their proposed tax a
really big one.
The White House will hold another closed-door session on Afghanistan
tonight.
[UPDATE]: Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect spoke with Ellis
Brachman, Obey's spokesperson, to get more details on the plan:
Essentially, below the $150,000 level, the 15 percent bracket for a
family, there would be an increase of 1 percent of your current level,
so for most people that would be 15.15 percent. Separate changes would
happen between the $150,000 to $250,000 income level and above
$250,000, which would be set by the president depending on his
eventual decision on what to do in Afghanistan; currently, the war
costs about $68 billion a year, but that could increase if the White
House decides to send more troops or spend more money on development
projects.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/23/807295/-Foes-of-Afghan-Escalation-Step-Up-Opposition
bademiyansubhanallah
Surtaxes are the New Black [Veronique de Rugy]
Surtaxes are the new rage this year. Nancy Pelosi wants a 5.4 percent
surtax on the rich to pay for half of the health-care-reform costs and
now senior House Democrats have introduced legislation that would
impose a surtax beginning in 2011 to cover the costs of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill would require the president to set the surtax so that it
fully pays for the previous year’s war cost. But it would allow for a
one-year delay in the implementation of the tax if the president
determines that the economy is too weak to sustain that kind of tax
change. It also would exempt military members who have served in
combat since Sept. 11, 2001, along with their families, and the
families of soldiers killed in combat.
Here is my question: If the Democrats believe that fairness requires
that everyone shoulders a piece of the cost of the war, why shouldn't
that rule also apply to health-care reform?
11/20 03:13 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmE5MTY1NDdiNDYwNThiZWUzZGVjNzEzODdlNGJlN2I=
The Congressional Quarterly has some of the details:
CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Nov. 20, 2009 – 1:43 p.m.
Democrats Propose Surtax to Cover War Costs
Senior House Democrats have introduced legislation that would impose a
surtax beginning in 2011 to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The bill was unveiled late Thursday by David R. Obey of Wisconsin,
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and has the backing of John
P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, and John B. Larson of Connecticut, chairman of the
Democratic Caucus.
“For the last year, as we’ve struggled to pass health care reform,
we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill — and the cost over
the next decade will be about a trillion dollars,” the three lawmakers
said in a joint statement. “Now the president is being asked to
consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which
proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost
about a trillion dollars. But unlike the health care bill, that would
not be paid for. We believe that’s wrong.”
Discussing the idea earlier this month, Murtha said he knew the bill
would not be enacted and that advocates of a surtax were simply trying
to send a message about the moral obligation to pay for the wars.
“The only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families,” Murtha, Obey and
Larson said in a joint statement. “We believe that if this war is to
be fought, it’s only fair that everyone share the burden.”
The bill would require the president to set the surtax so that it
fully pays for the previous year’s war cost. But it would allow for a
one-year delay in the implementation of the tax if the president
determines that the economy is too weak to sustain that kind of tax
change. It also would exempt military members who have served in
combat since Sept. 11, 2001, along with their families, and the
families of soldiers killed in combat.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000003252935
bademiyansubhanallah
The White House estimate is twice the Pentagon's. Some see politics at
play.
November 23, 2009
Reporting from Washington - As President Obama measures the potential
burden of a new war strategy in Afghanistan, his administration is
struggling to come up with even the most dispassionate of predictions:
the actual price tag for the anticipated buildup of troops.
The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon
publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional
service member sent to the war zone. Obama's budget experts size it up
at twice that much.
In coming up with such numbers, the White House and the military have
different priorities as well as different methods.
The president's advisors don't want to underestimate the cost and then
lose the public's faith. The Pentagon worries about sticker shock as
commanders push for an increase of as many as 40,000 troops.
Both sides emphasize that their figures are estimates and could change
-- in fact, a Pentagon comptroller assessment this month put the
number closer to that of Obama's Office of Management and Budget.
Still, budgeting and politics are entwined, and numbers can always
support more than one point of view.
The Bush White House minimized costs as it moved toward war. Obama is
weighing skeptically an escalation of a war he didn't launch. In his
campaign, Obama promised not to tuck war costs away, off federal
budget books.
"Our resources in manpower, our resources in human lives and our
resources in money are not infinite," White House Press Secretary
Robert Gibbs said in an interview. "The notion that we wouldn't take
each of those things into account does not make a lot of sense to this
commander in chief."
All of those elements are under consideration as Obama wraps up a
review of war strategy. He is expected any week now to respond to
requests from his commander in the region for a strategy change and
for additional forces. The White House could announce an increase of
20,000 to 40,000 troops shortly after Thanksgiving.
During a recent session of his war council -- where one contingent has
questioned the wisdom of sending more troops -- Obama asked how much
it would cost to pay for the troops Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has
requested. The president sought an exact accounting, a request that
turned out to be more complicated than anticipated.
The Office of Management and Budget says adding 40,000 troops would
cost about $40 billion a year, or $1 million each. White House
officials included in their estimate everything they consider
necessary to wage war, including troop housing and equipment.
Inside and outside the Pentagon, some suspect an effort to undermine
support for a troop increase. "The large-scale message has been, 'This
is going to be hard and expensive,' " said Thomas Donnelly, an
American Enterprise Institute fellow and defense expert.
The Pentagon arrived at its much lower estimate by dividing its war
funding request by the number of troops throughout the region: 68,000
in Afghanistan and up to 95,000 in supporting roles elsewhere, such as
on nearby ships or in surrounding countries.
The Pentagon cost includes higher combat wages, extra aircraft hours
and other operations and maintenance costs, but omits such items as
new weapons purchases -- one-time costs that vary by year -- and
support equipment like spy satellites and anti-roadside-bomb
technology.
The Pentagon also does not try to estimate costs of new bases for
additional soldiers.
But in a memo early this month, obtained by The Times' Washington
bureau, the Pentagon's own comptroller produced an estimate that broke
with the customary Defense formula and did include construction and
equipment.
That memo said the yearly cost of a 40,000-troop increase would be $30
billion to $35 billion -- at least $750,000 a person. An increase of
20,000 would cost $20 billion to $25 billion annually, it said -- a
per-soldier cost equal to or greater than the White House estimate.
Even determining past spending is a fuzzy endeavor: Big chunks are
paid through emergency measures and are not calculated into the total.
Under questioning by the House Armed Services Committee this month, a
Congressional Budget Office expert couldn't say how much it costs to
run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I find it astonishing that, eight years into this, we haven't nailed
it down with precision," another witness at the table, David Berteau,
director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, said later.
And yet the effort is necessary, said Stephen Daggett of the
Congressional Research Service: "If the budget is going to be
constrained, one of the questions we have to ask is whether we can
sustain the increases in forces."
Partisans of all stripes are likely to think first about intangibles,
including American tolerance for troop casualties and support for
sending new troops to Afghanistan.
Democratic leaders say money won't determine their level of
commitment.
"You have to look at the mission first," said House Armed Services
Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.). "You absolutely start with
that."
Obama's decision will not be based on money, his press secretary said.
"The president is going to pick the strategy that's most in our
national security interest," Gibbs said.
"Along the way, the health of our forces, the toll on lives and the
financial costs will all be discussed."
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-troop-costs23-2009nov23,0,3233273.story
bademiyansubhanallah
Obama's Afghanistan gambit
His speech Tuesday made clear the worthy goals in escalating the
Afghanistan war. But the odds of success -- and the high cost -- are
cause for concern.
December 2, 2009
Even as President Obama announced an escalation of the war in
Afghanistan, he focused on plans for getting out. At the same time
that he ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines to the
front, he said he would start bringing them home in July 2011. And
while assuring neighboring Pakistan of America's long-term commitment
to South Asia, he also sought to reassure Americans that there are
limits to U.S. military involvement in the region.
We appreciate the president's rhetorical prowess. Tuesday's speech was
clear and cogent. Yet we can't help but wonder if he will be able to
keep so many seemingly contradictory promises made to so many
different audiences. We understand that Obama inherited a neglected
war and was presented with an array of bad choices, and we certainly
hope he is making the right decision to double down in Afghanistan.
But frankly, we have grave misgivings about the cost and likelihood of
success.
To his credit, Obama offered clear answers to questions the country
has long been asking: The goal in Afghanistan, he said, is to deny Al
Qaeda a haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum and prevent it from
overthrowing the national government. The strategy is to deploy troops
to target the insurgency and protect cities while building up the
Afghan military and government -- "nation-building," without the scary
name, in a country that has studiously resisted previous attempts by
outsiders to forge a central state. The cost will be an additional $30
billion next year, and more after that. The end game: "to hasten the
day when our troops will leave."
Obama argued that to leave Afghanistan now would be to relinquish it
to Al Qaeda and its allies, and that to maintain current troop levels
would be to "muddle through" while allowing the Taliban to continue
gaining ground. He also said the open-ended escalation advocated by
conservatives would cost too much and go beyond what we need to secure
our national interests. On that point, he is certainly right.
The president wrapped his decision-making in the loftiest of American
values, citing America's historic "special burden in global affairs"
and arguing that the U.S. sends its troops abroad to fight oppression
and liberate people rather than to dominate them. But that distinction
may well be lost on Afghans witnessing yet another wave of foreign
soldiers streaming into their country.
"Right makes might," Obama said, and we sincerely hope he's correct.
He also said -- and this part seems indisputable -- that "none of this
will be easy." We believe him when says he is committed to protecting
American security. It's the means that worry us. The last thing we
want is to find ourselves several years from now leaving an
Afghanistan just as troubled as it is today, with little to show for
our dead and our dollars.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-afghanistan2-2009dec02,0,6024916.story
chhotemianinshallah
Force prepare to patrol the Sangin district Afghanistan's of Helmand
province Wednesday.
Abdul Khaleq/AP
NATO countries pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan
The NATO secretary-general announced the increase in troops Friday.
The forces will come from 25 NATO countries.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 4, 2009 edition
Print this Buzz up!Email and shareRepublish E-mail newsletters RSS
Washington - NATO countries are responding positively to President
Obama's plan to ramp up the international counterinsurgency effort in
Afghanistan, committing to sending 7,000 more troops to complement the
30,000 additional US forces that Mr. Obama announced Tuesday.
The 7,000 NATO forces announced at a meeting of the alliance's foreign
ministers in Brussels Friday does not yet match the 10,000 additional
international forces that the Obama administration is said to be
seeking. That number, when joined with the new US forces set to begin
arriving in January, would add up to the 40,000 additional troops that
the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has called
for.
But NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested at the
meeting that the 7,000 forces from 25 countries was not the limit of
what NATO countries would contribute, predicting there were "more to
come."
The NATO contribution topped a figure of 5,000 additional forces that
Mr. Rasmussen had cited just before Obama's Tuesday evening speech.
The higher number announced Friday appeared designed to underscore
both alliance unity over the Afghanistan mission and support for
Obama's strategy of weakening the Taliban while training more Afghan
security forces.
"The strongest message in the room today was solidarity," Rasmussen
said following the foreign ministers' meeting. "Nations are backing up
their words with deeds."
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised countries such as
Britain and Italy that have already announced more troops, while
reminding her colleagues that "this is our fight together, and we must
finish it together."
Still, some NATO analysts say, the number of fresh NATO troops that
countries have committed to may not reach the 7,000 figure. According
to NATO officials, firm commitments amount to 5,500, with 1,500 more
anticipated, based on Rasmussen's conversations with alliance
countries in recent days.
Moreover, some of the "additional forces" are likely to be troops
already in Afghanistan whose anticipated withdrawal will now be put
off in deference to Obama's new strategy, some analysts say.
Several big question marks remain in terms of NATO countries that have
not yet pledged additional forces but may still do so.
Both Germany and France say they will await the outcome of an
international conference on Afghanistan slated for London next January
before making a decision. If they do send troops, they would probably
be additional trainers for the effort to accelerate the expansion of
the Afghan Army and police forces.
Eyes have also fallen on Turkey, which is NATO's only Muslim member.
It has sent mixed signals recently over its willingness to add to the
1,750 troops it already has in Afghanistan performing strictly
noncombat duties. Turkish officials have suggested since Obama's
speech that Turkey is reviewing its commitment and may indeed send
more soldiers – but only for training and civilian-development
duties.
Yet with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan set to meet with
Obama at the White House on Monday, Turkey is likely to come under
more pressure to announce a significant contribution to NATO's
Afghanistan forces.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1204/p02s05-usfp.html
chhotemianinshallah
American soldier -- double that, if replacing equipment like
helicopters and other long-term costs are factored in.
(Zohra Bensemra/Reuters) Enlarge Photos (1 of 1)
What Obama’s Afghan war plan will cost you
By Laurent Belsie | 12.03.09
How much will the troop escalation in Afghanistan cost you?
A pretty penny. President Obama said Tuesday night it would cost $30
billion this fiscal year — or about $1 million per soldier — to send
30,000 additional troops there. That’s a low estimate, budget experts
say, but let’s run with it for the moment. An extra $30 billion in
Afghanistan means that in 2010 alone, US military spending in
Afghanistan will equal nearly half of total spending on the war since
2001, according to Travis Sharp, military policy analyst with the
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. The troop
increase will cost $2.5 billion per month, $82 million per day, $3.4
million per hour, $57,000 per minute, and $951 per second.
It’s a direct tax on Americans: about $195 for each taxpayer next
year.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Even after wars wind down,
charges continue to accrue.
“The total cost of [the escalation in] Afghanistan will be at least
twice the cost and perhaps three times the cost of the estimate, says
Linda Bilmes, a budget and public-finance expert at Harvard’s Kennedy
School of Government. When she counts replacement of worn-out military
equipment, disability payments to soldiers, Veterans Administration
medical care, and the interest charges to finance the war, the tab
doubles. When she adds indirect costs to the economy — say, the lost
wages of a parent who quits his job to care for a son wounded in
combat — it triples.
“We know that those are a decades-long costs,” says professor Bilmes.
“The next question is: How do we budget for it? And how do we pay for
it?”
A war tax, war bonds, and budget cuts have all been proposed, although
it looks as though the administration will just keep on borrowing. In
whatever form it comes, the real costs for the individual taxpayer
could peak anywhere from $400 to $600 annually for the next couple of
years and then begin to tail off — assuming all goes well in
Afghanistan.
Comments
1. Paul Sullivan | 12.03.09
Dear Laurent Belsie,
Thank you for being the only reporter in the country to cover the
issue of disability payments and healthcare for veterans wounded,
injured, or ill due to their military deployment to the Afghanistan
War - now Obama’s War.
Veterans for Common Sense, a non-profit based in Washington, DC,
provided the documents to Professor Linda Bilmes for her use in
estimating the human costs of the war paid by U.S. taxpayers via the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The facts are grim: as of June 2009, VA treated 480,000 Iraq and
Afghanistan War veteran patients, a fact uncovered exclusively by
Veterans for Common Sense.
The trend is ominous. Based on the current trends, additional
deployments, and the economic recession, VCS estimates, as a worst-
case scenario, that as many as one million Iraq and Afghanistan War
veterans will flood into VA hospitals and clinics after serving in
combat.
Exacerbating the situation is the fact that about 40 percent of our
forces have deployed twice or more to war, further increasing the risk
of depression, PTSD, and suicide. Yet both VA and the military lack
the urgently needed mental healthcare providers to provide exams and
treatment for our service members and veterans.
If you want more information, please contact us or visit our web site:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org.
Sincerely,
Paul Sullivan
Executive Director
Veterans for Common Sense
Washington, DC
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/12/03/what-obamas-afghan-war-plan-will-cost-you/
chhotemianinshallah
Force remains alert as blankets and sacks of rice, provided by Italian
soldiers, are distributed to former Taliban members, in Herat, west of
Kabul, Afghanistan Thursday.
Fraidoon Pooyaa/AP
Afghanistan war: Italy offers 1,000 troops to support Obama's surge
Italy promised to send 1,000 more troops to the war in Afghanistan,
the largest increased announced yet from European allies. President
Barack Obama is hoping Europe will muster 10,000 soldiers for his
surge.
By Anna Momigliano | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 3, 2009 edition
Milan, Italy - Two days after President Barack Obama asked allies to
send new troops along with his plan to surge 30,000 new forces into
Afghanistan, Italy pledged to send 1,000 more soldiers.
"We must finish the job started with NATO," Foreign Minister Franco
Frattini said. "Italy is already doing a lot in Afghanistan, now let's
hope other [European] allies will do the same."
In the past days rumors circulated about Rome planning to aid Obama's
surge with 1,500 extra soldiers.
On Thursday, Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa said in an interview
with Il Corriere della Sera daily newspaper: "The number is rather
around 1,000." Mr. La Russa added that the details will be finalized
"in the next few days, when Frattini meets with US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton." The Italian Defense Ministry said that the fresh
troops would be dispatched sometime in the second half of next year.
President Obama has been looking to European allies to contribute
10,000 more soldiers to the war effort, but specific pledges of fresh
troops have been slow in coming. Britain, the second largest provider
of forces in Afghanistan, has promised to send 500 more soldiers, and
analysts there say that is stretching their ability to contribute near
to its limit. Germany, with the third largest NATO contingent in
Afghanistan, has said it will consider sending more soldiers only
after a conference on Afghanistan's future scheduled for Jan. 28 in
London.
Italy currently has about 2,750 troops in Afghanistan, according to
the website for the International Assistance Force Afghanistan, the
coordinating body for the NATO-led mission.
"Sending 1,000 extra troops means a huge effort for an army of this
size," says Lucio Caracciolo, a foreign policy analyst and editor of
Limes, an Italian geo-politics magazine. "It's a 30 percent increase.
This means Italy will have to withdraw some of its troops from other
missions abroad, most likely from the Balkans and perhaps even from
Lebanon."
Mr. Caracciolo notes the decision came at a time when public opinion
across Europe seems "particularly disillusioned" with the war. But he
also claims it will have a limited impact on the government's
popularity. "The general public doesn't pay that much attention to
Afghanistan, until there is an emergency or some of our soldiers get
killed," he says.
Nevertheless there has been growing public unease over Afghanistan and
Italian casualties, with 22 Italian soldiers killed so far. The deaths
of six soldiers in a Kabul suicide blast in September prompted a
national debate over the merits of the mission.
Foreign Minister Frattini said that his government "shares Obama's
strategic view." But Caracciolo says that the decision is a largely
political one. "It's all about showing Italy is on America's side. The
government's recent decision is actually in line with the past ones:
Washington sets the strategy, we put in some troops."
Caracciolo argues that "strategic debate is virtually non-existent" in
Italy. He claims Rome's approach to the war in Afghanistan can be
summarized in two sentences: "Let's stick to what the Americans ask,
and then let's cross fingers. "
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1203/p06s07-woeu.html
chhotemianinshallah
Click-2-Listen
By Gary Harmon
Friday, December 04, 2009
Here’s an interesting question for history buffs:
What American president ordered the escalation of American military
commitment to an unpopular conflict on the other side of the globe,
sending members of his own party into a self-loathing, but ultimately
obedient, tizzy?
No, don’t guess quite yet.
Which president scolded the government of the other country for its
corruption while not merely overlooking, but tolerating and even
rewarding, remarkable levels of corruption in his own inner circle?
Think you know the answer?
This president was a well-known senator before ascending to the Oval
Office and sought to govern on the notion that American wealth ought
to be better spread around.
OK, here are your choices.
A: Lyndon Baines Johnson.
B: Barack Obama.
Now think for a moment. We’ll wait.
Tick, tick, tick, tock ....
Actually, it’s a trick question.
The answer is C, both of the above.
Johnson, of course, famously embarked on a course of escalation in
Vietnam shortly after he assumed office in the wake of the Kennedy
assassination.
Not even a year into his presidency, Obama has ordered an additional
30,000 troops to, well, let’s just call it Afghani-nam.
Johnson called on the nation to join the war against communism “with
strength and determination.”
Obama said American security was “at stake” in Afghani-nam.
Johnson famously micromanaged the war until the war got even and
macromanaged him out of office. He decided not to run for re-election
in 1968 in large part because of public opposition to the war.
Obama, missing the entire lesson of Vietnam, started with a
micromanaged deadline and ignored the request of his generals for
40,000 troops and low-balled it to 30,000.
Not unlike the government of Vietnam, the Afghani-nam government is
awash in corruption.
Like the Johnson administration before it with Vietnam, the Obama
administration wants to impose the kind of ideological purity on
Afghani-nam that it never would impose on itself.
Government officials on the take in Afghani-nam are a horror,
according to Obama.
On the other hand, the Obama administration sees no need for
prospective Cabinet members to pay taxes. The president even put a tax
cheat, Timothy Geithner, as the head of the Treasury Department .
The Johnson administration was a serial phone-tapper and delighted in
listening to the private conversations of, among others, the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr.
The Obama administration is picking up where the Johnson
administration left off with its Great Society ambitions.
Johnson, in large part, saw his hopes for a domestic utopia frustrated
by John F. Kennedy’s war and Obama already is blaming his predecessor
for all the ills that have befallen his still-young administration.
To be sure, there are differences, and some frightening similarities,
between Vietnam and Afghani-nam.
One is in Southeast Asia, the other lies near the Middle East. North
Vietnam waged a guerilla war using the Viet Cong. The Taliban is
waging a guerilla war now, in territory best described as inhospitable
to outsiders.
North Vietnam was a client state whose war effort was bankrolled by
China and the USSR.
The Taliban gets support from a more shadowy network linked to radical
Islam, which has used Afghani-nam for training of terrorists. That’s
one of the reasons the United States went there in the first place.
It’s not enunciated as the Domino Theory anymore, largely because, as
we have seen, state borders are no barrier to the advancement of
radical Islamic ideology. Like Johnson, Obama claims to believe that
the kind of radicalism that thrives on executions, institutional
misogyny and terror constitutes a threat, even when centered on the
other side of the Earth.
Just how seriously that belief can be taken remains to be seen.
If Obama uses the Johnson playbook, as he has so far, get used to
Afghani-nam.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/12/04/120609_7B_Harmon_column.html
bademiyansubhanallah
December 5, 2009
In fact, Iraq analogies have been flying back and forth so furiously
in recent days that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, the only
holdover from the Bush-era cabinet, told Congress, “This is the second
surge I’ve been up here defending.”
But probe beneath the surface, and it becomes clear that Mr. Obama is
heading into his new strategy with his ears ringing with warnings —
from some of his own aides and military commanders — that many of the
conditions that made the Iraq surge work do not exist in Afghanistan.
http://www.asianews.com.pk/2009/12/iraq-afghanistan-surge-analogies-mask-risks-of-afghanistan/
bademiyansubhanallah
Kandahar Cops Won't Go On Patrol Without U.S. Mentors
By NICK SCHIFRIN and MATTHEW McGARRY
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Dec. 4, 2009
On a recent evening Staff Sgt. Jeff Schaffer watched closely as a
plain-clothes intelligence agent pointed to four different spots on a
map of Kandahar. Schaffer is a squad leader in the first platoon of
the 293rd Military Police Company, the only U.S. unit that regularly
patrols inside the city center.
U.S. soldiers from Stryker Brigade patrol in Arghandab District,
Kandahar province in this Nov. ...
U.S. soldiers from Stryker Brigade patrol in Arghandab District,
Kandahar province in this Nov. 2009 file photo. Kandahar will be the
center of the new U.S. strategy announced by President Obama,
according to military and civilian officials interviewed in Kandahar
and Kabul.
(Omar Sobhani/Reuters)The intelligence agent showed a young,
inexperienced Afghan police sergeant the location of a school on the
edge of the city where insurgents had hid three jugs of explosives,
destined to be used for the ubiquitous roadside bombs known in
military parlance as IEDs.
The sergeant nodded with understanding, and the Afghan police and
their American mentors left for a night patrol.
Multiple Kandahar residents say the Taliban "own the night." The
regular night patrols that Schaffer leads are an attempt to take it
back.
"The Taliban enjoy the limited visibility to have freedom of
movement," Schaffer, 25, said as he walked along a rocky alley in the
dark. The only light allowed was the red flashlight being used by
reporters walking with him. "So us showing up sporadically here and
there, it's good. It shows to locals that hey, we're out here, we're
involved, we're going to be in your backyards day and night."
The Afghan police sergeant arrived in the area where the school should
have been. He then turned to Schaffer's translator and made an
admission: He didn't know where he was going. Nobody had ever shown
him how to read a map.
Kandahar will be the center of the new U.S. strategy announced by
President Obama, according to military and civilian officials
interviewed in Kandahar and Kabul. The goal: protect the population
better than they have been protected so far.
At least 10,000 of the additional 30,000 troops Obama announced will
be deployed in and around the city, officials say. Most of them will
go to the city's outskirts to try to create what the new Canadian
general in charge of Kandahar calls a "ring of stability" and a "true
buffer zone" to keep militants out.
"Kandahar," a senior U.S. military official in Kabul said, "is the
crown jewel of the new effort."
Some of the reinforcements will be deployed inside Kandahar, boosting
the number of military police who arrived early this summer. Their job
will be to train woefully equipped police who, in many areas of the
city, simply refuse to leave their stations without their American
mentors.
The commander of the Afghan sergeant who couldn't read the map admits
his police owe everything they have to foreign troops and would be
overrun without them.
"We need the support of the coalition forces. We don't have enough
ammunition or equipment," said Abdul Qadir, who lost three members of
his family to Taliban attacks. "We have our uniforms and we're sitting
here today because of the coalition's help."
But in quarterly assessments of the Kandahar police, the Canadian
government admitted in September that only one of the 17 police units
in the city was capable of "planning, executing and sustaining near-
autonomous operations."
Alex Strick van Linschoten, who says he is the only Westerner living
on his own inside the city, has seen the deterioration of the city's
security.
"Each year and each month gets slightly worse in terms of security in
the city," he says. "I drive around the streets with my driver who's
been living in the city his whole life and he points to people
standing on the corners and says, 'That's a Taliban commander from
this place and that's a Taliban commander from that place.'"
Van Linschoten says he has seen Taliban checkpoints inside the city
limits. "From the minute you step off the plane, you're being
monitored, and that's scary," he argues.
Capt. Michael Thurman, the Bravo Company commander of the 293rd
Military Police Company, described the effect of that fear. "After
they get scared, they start to question, 'Well who do I go with? Do I
go with the Taliban or do I go with the Afghan National Police? Whose
side of the government should I work on now?," he says. "We have to
secure them. And to do that, we need more policing."
"That Connection Doesn't Exist"
In addition to training police, the U.S. and Canada will focus on
trying to improve the city's government, which Western officials say
has so far failed to enhance the city with any significant
development. Without that development, they say residents will never
support the foreign forces who are seen as the government's patrons.
"We have an enormous amount of money, but we can deliver services only
if we have the people who can work with us," one Western official in
the city said.
On a recent patrol, Maj. Frederic Jean, who until recently was the
battle commander for the Canadian forces in the city, walked into an
angry group of shop owners.
They were complaining that the government hadn't helped them after a
massive truck bomb exploded across the street in late August, killing
dozens and destroying many of their buildings.
The lack of electricity is especially irksome to residents. Despite
millions of dollars in development aid, Kandahar only has three to
four hours of electricity a day.
Part of the problem is corruption, U.S. officials say, especially
within the lower levels of bureaucracy. American military officers
describe occasions when Afghan police had shaken locals down at
checkpoints. Civilian officials describe occasions when government
officials skimmed huge chunks of development aid.
In one small example, the manager of Western company in Kandahar said
he had to pay a $5,000 bribe to increase electricity going into his
building.
But a larger problem than corruption is capacity. The governor argues
that Kandahar does not have enough money or resources.
One Western official who helped the governor sign a contract with a
Western security company joked how few people he had working for him.
Had the Canadians not helped the governor fill out his staff, the
official quipped, "the only people in his office would have been him
and a driver."
The lack of a strong government in Kandahar radiates outside of the
city, where the Taliban have launched a successful campaign against
tribal leaders who had been providing local security in many Kandahar
districts.
Without strong tribal structures, the Taliban were able to move into
areas and create their own shadow court system that local residents
have no choice but to use – simply because the government was
providing no alternative.
"Success in this country depends on the connection between the people
and the government," a Western official in Kandahar said. "And right
now, that connection doesn't exist."
That connection can be facilitated by better security, which U.S.
officials argue will come after thousands of additional troops deploy
to the edge of the city.
"Today, the number of troops is not sufficient to the size of the
population," a Western official in Kandahar said.
In the past, the official said foreign forces would clear an area, but
would then have to leave and the Taliban would return.
Providing security from the Taliban does not only come from additional
troops. To receive the intelligence they will need to target the
Taliban, troops and the Afghan police will have to earn the trust of
the population.
"The militants' ability to move throughout the city is there, and we
can't stop that. So what we have to do is get the local populace to
identify the outsiders," argued Capt. Thurman. "And until we get the
populace to actually give us that intelligence, we will never get to
the point where we're going to win the counterinsurgency battle."
Thurman told the story of a recent foot patrol with the Afghan police
through a market, as close as these troops can get to "walking a
beat."
"A local elder came up to me and said it was the first time in five
years that he'd seen a foreign soldier on the ground, out of their
vehicles," Thurman remembered.
Thurman argues that foreign troops in Kandahar had failed to properly
engage with the local population. They ride around in their armored
trucks and they don't get out as often as they should, he said.
And that creates a divide between the people and the men who are
supposed to be their protectors. Because the people of Kandahar have
no armor against deteriorating security.
"We've got a lot of work to do and not a lot of time to do it in,"
Thurman said. "What we've been doing in Kandahar is not working."
4 Comments
Yes we can....maybe we can..maybe not. The President gave one little
sad sack speech. Yes we are going to send you to Afghanistan to fight
a war and to bleed and die for nothing. I am saying we can not win
because we will be gone in 19 months to leave the Afghans and our
troops to hang in the wind. What a motivating Commander in Chief
telling the military folks we dint care how many of you are killed we
are going to make a half hearted effort at this and by the way thanks
for your blood and sweat and tears. I have been to that neck of the
woods in the military. We have the best military in the world bar
none. You do not win a war from Aircraft or drones. It is those boots
on the ground that deny the enemy movement. Been a constant in warfare
since the first tribes fought.I am glad that we had leaders in 41 who
did not whine and pout after Japan attacked us. Well we are going to
give it 24 months and just let Japan have the Pacific and Germany have
Europe.When you call the pest exterminator do you tell him to only do
half the house because you know they will come back?We say we are
leaving them because they are corrupt nation. While one of our
Congressman gets busted and sent to jail. We have another
Representative who gives her vote away for 300 million in taxpayer
dollars.We are as corrupt or more corrupt than the Afghan government.
Pot calling the kettle black. There is some cream in the Afghanistan
population you need to give it some room to rise to the top.Look at
Iraq after the surge...it took three years but Iraq has some breathing
room. How are the U.S. Casualties in Iraq now? Iraq doesn't even make
the news cut anymore ist so quiet. Our military did it there and with
people and resources they can do it again.There is no difference
between Dems and Republicans anymore. You know how I can tell they are
lying? They are politicians and their lips are moving.
Posted by:
gshayd Dec-4
In Vietnam it was Charlie that owned the night.
Posted by:
zanderofneworleans Dec-4
gshayd7: Yeah, the U.S. OWNS that place. The U.S. can OWN any portion
of the planet it wants, occupied or not. No one would ever DARE harm a
U.S. soldier, either. Those casualties, those lives lost that they
keep reporting in the news? Don't believe it, it's pure fabrication.
Posted by:
Abraham_Linkin Dec-4
If the U.S. is there now the Taliban do not own the night
anymore....we just took back ownership.
Posted by:
gshayd Dec-4
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/kandahar-taliban-night/story?id=9242506
bademiyansubhanallah
December 4, 2009 -- Updated 1634 GMT (0034 HKT)
A U.S. Marine searches for roadside bombs last week in Afghanistan's
Helmand province.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
U.S., British, Afghan forces try to clear militants from northern
Helmand province
Khareh Cobra operation comes as U.S., NATO pledge more troops for
Afghanistan
Poppy-growing Helmand region supplies 90 percent of the world's opium
(CNN) -- More than 1,000 troops have started a big push against
insurgents in a militant stronghold of southern Afghanistan, the U.S.
Marines said Friday.
Around 900 American and British troops and more than 150 Afghan
soldiers and police are working to clear militants from the Now Zad
Valley of northern Helmand province in an operation called Khareh
Cobra, or Cobra's Anger.
Helicopter and ground operations began around 3 a.m. local time Friday
to take hold of "key terrain," said Maj. William Pelletier.
So far, he said, there have been a handful of insurgent deaths during
small-scale engagements and forces have found weapons caches, seizing
rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. Troops also have discovered
components used to make deadly roadside bombs.
The operation began as the United States and other NATO allies
announced plans this week to escalate the fight against the Taliban
and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and along its border with Pakistan.
Video: U.S. relies on local Afghan groups
Video: Clinton on more NATO troops
Video: Obama team grilled on Afghan plan
The Obama administration pledged 30,000 more U.S. troops to complement
the 68,000 in Afghanistan, and NATO command said other allies have
promised around 7,000 more troops.
Helmand province -- where British troops long have been based -- has
been a militant stronghold and a poppy-growing region that helps fund
the insurgency. It supplies 90 percent of the world's opium, which is
used in the production of heroin.
Now Zad had been the second-largest city in the province, the Marines
said, but has become empty because of years of fighting.
The valley is "a major through-route" for transporting fighters and
munitions from east to west and north to south, said Pelletier, who's
at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand.
The Marines said insurgents have mined the region and troops intend to
provide enough security for the Afghan government and nongovernmental
organizations to begin clearing the mines and roadside bombs so they
can repopulate the town.
Because the area is heavily mined and laden with roadside bombs,
Marines are using mine rollers to clear roads, Pelletier said.
Pelletier said U.S. forces are closing in on the area from the north
and south and British forces are operating to the east in the Musa
Qalah.
The U.S. troops include Marines and sailors from the Marine
Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan. The British forces are from Task
Force Helmand and are helping to clear insurgent forces in the Now Zad
Valley.
The Marines said a company of Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 4th
Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7 is stationed at a forward
operating base in Now Zad with Afghan soldiers and police.
Earlier this year, U.S. Marines launched a major operation against
Taliban fighters in the southern part of Helmand province called
Operation Khanjar, or strike of the sword, and they helped Afghan
forces conduct security operations for the presidential elections.
Khanjar took place not long after U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal took
over as the allied commander in Afghanistan in June.
CNN's Frederik Pleitgen contributed to this report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/04/afghanistan.operation/
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-05 14:33:11
KABUL, Dec. 5 (Xinhua) -- Afghan security forces arrested two
shadowy district chiefs of Taliban outfit in Jauzjan province north of
Afghanistan, according to a local newspaper on Saturday.
"Mullah Assadullah and Mullah Yakh, arrested from Aqcha and
Khanaka districts, had been appointed by Taliban outfit as governors
of the mentioned districts," daily 8Subh reported in its edition.
There arrest took place in the wake of the assassination of an
intelligence officer in the province couple of days ago.
Quoting officials, the daily 8Subh also added that some documents
including explosive devices and weapons were also seized from their
possessions.
Meantime, Zabihullah Mujahid who claims to speak for the Taliban
outfit in talks with media via telephone from undisclosed location had
ruled the link of the arrested men with the insurgents.
Editor: Bi Mingxin
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/05/content_12593880.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
By Doug Stanton
Sunday, December 6, 2009
In mid-October and early November 2001, about three dozen Army Special
Forces soldiers landed in northern Afghanistan and, with the help of a
handful of CIA officers, quickly routed a Taliban army whose estimated
size ranged from 25,000 to 50,000 fighters. Allied with Afghan
fighters, this incredibly small number of first-in soldiers achieved
in about eight weeks what the Pentagon had thought would take two
years. For the first time in U.S. history, Army Special Forces were
deployed as the lead element in a war.
And then, just as quickly, the Americans went home, pulled away to
fight in Iraq in 2003. The Taliban soldiers filled the emerging power
vacuum, and you pretty much know the rest of the story: Gen. Stanley
McChrystal's dire August report on deteriorating conditions in
Afghanistan, and President Obama's speech Tuesday announcing an influx
of 30,000 additional American troops -- needed, the president said,
because "the Taliban has gained momentum."
Obama's stated purposes -- to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat
al-Qaeda, and to train an Afghan army and police force capable of
providing for the nation's security -- are sensible and even noble.
Accomplishing them will go a ways toward creating a more stable
country. But his new strategy is not enough, and it may prove a
mistaken effort to replicate an Iraq-like approach in a situation that
is vastly different.
In Afghanistan, we are not facing a broad insurgency with popular
grass-roots support. Estimates of Taliban strength run anywhere from
10,000 to 25,000 fighters, and only a small portion of the Afghan
population supports the Taliban, perhaps 5 percent to 10 percent
(polls are sketchy). Yet it is unclear whether Obama's plan is
anything more than Iraq-lite, a counterinsurgency approach focused on
building up local forces.
All the "graveyard of empires" metaphors aside, it's no secret that
Afghans excel at repelling occupiers, and dropping 30,000 new troops
into the country is a sure way of being perceived as an occupying
force. Instead, Obama could steal a page from the original approach to
the Afghan war -- the Special Forces approach, which I chronicled in a
book called "Horse Soldiers" and which recognizes, as one Special
Forces major explained to me, that an insurgency is a social problem,
like teen pregnancy or drug abuse. The solutions evolve (if they do at
all) over generations, not in months or in a few years.
The debate over what to do in Afghanistan, then, is really a debate
about locating the centers of gravity in that country -- those people,
places and power brokers who must be influenced to make social
change.
When I tuned in to Obama's speech, I was hoping for a plan that did
not solely resemble a conventional counterinsurgency strategy, like
McChrystal's, with its traditional aims to "clear, hold and build"
ground and undertake the complicated task of nation-building. While
this strategy has worked in degrees in Iraq, it was preceded by a more
nuanced, complex strategy of working with and through local Iraqis,
principally in Anbar province. There, men such as retired Army Special
Forces Master Sgt. Andy Marchal, who had fought in Afghanistan in 2001
with the first team to enter the country, instigated social change and
tamped down violence by creating jobs and working with tribesmen who
had decided to stop fighting alongside al-Qaeda.
"As soon as I saw that the main problem in the village was
unemployment -- at one point it was at 70 percent -- I knew I wouldn't
even have to pick up my gun," he recently told me. "I simply had to
create more jobs than al-Qaeda was creating and get those guys to work
in this new economy. After that, the hard-core fighters left behind
would start fighting each other, and sure enough, that's what
happened."
Marchal did this with a small group of Special Forces soldiers, maybe
numbering no more than two dozen.
This model works tribe by tribe and village by village. It considers
violence, unemployment and unrest as part of the same cloth. Special
Forces soldiers may arm and train militias to defend themselves, as
well as help build water systems and provide jobs and medical care. It
can be slower, nuanced work, and it relies on building rapport with
citizens, which is why Special Forces soldiers receive language
training and believe awareness of local customs and mores is critical.
Think of soldiers engaged in such efforts as Peace Corps members --
only they can shoot back.
This model can be far less bloody and far less costly than deploying
tens of thousands of conventional Army troops, and there are signs
that a "tribal-centric" approach is gaining traction with some
strategists. One signal is the buzz created by an informal paper
called "Tribe by Tribe," by Special Forces Maj. Jim Gant. "When we
gain the respect of one tribe," Gant writes, "there will be a domino
effect throughout the region and beyond. One tribe will eventually
become 25 or even 50 tribes."
Another encouraging sign is a dynamic new effort called the Community
Defense Initiative. Afghan citizens and militias not sympathetic to
the Taliban are receiving assistance from teams of Special Forces
soldiers to defend their villages from Taliban attack. The initiative
resembles what Special Forces soldiers did during the fighting in
2001, when they united various ethnic groups and fought together
against the Taliban.
This approach, one senior defense official says, proceeds from the
assumption that peace and stability are created from the ground up,
not from the national government down, and that each valley and tribe
may require a unique solution. One advantage to this approach is that
it does not rely on a weak and so-far ineffectual government in Kabul
for support, which, the defense official said, would be like "hitching
our wagon to a crippled horse."
It's not too late to consider wider adoption of the tribal approach.
Noting that the war has lasted more than eight years, Obama has set a
target date (July 2011) for beginning a "transfer" of U.S. forces out
of Afghanistan. In a sense, however, the war has only now snapped into
focus, with attention and resources no longer consumed entirely by
Iraq.
The debate about what to do in Afghanistan has often seemed a simple,
binary discussion: all in, or all out. Do we flood the zone with
thousands of troops and risk appearing to be imperialist occupiers? Or
do we take a light-footprint approach, as in 2001, avoiding the
"occupier" label but risking a longer march with the Afghans toward a
peaceful society? As Obama pointed out in his speech, there is no
simple right and wrong. But some answers are better than others.
One better answer is to revisit the lessons from the Special Forces
campaign immediately after Sept. 11, 2001. This may not be easy.
Within the military, there is resistance to this kind of warfare. The
conventional Army, one Special Forces officer told me, was
uncomfortable with the decentralized nature of the war effort in 2001
and with how cheap it was.
He recounted how he was once stopped by a senior officer from the
conventional Army who told him, "You must be proud of what you did in
Afghanistan." The Special Forces officer said he was.
"Good," replied the other, "because you'll never get the chance to do
it again."
Doug Stanton is the author of "Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story
of a Band of U.S. Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402608.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, December 6, 2009
President Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan meets the tests
of strategic necessity abroad and political equilibrium at home. He
can reasonably hope that his surge will buy time for things to
improve, particularly in Pakistan, the war's vital theater.
But even the dispatch of 30,000 new U.S. troops to Afghanistan does
not buy the president the power to change things there on his own. He
is still the prisoner of context, an area he neglected in explaining
his revised Afghan strategy last week.
Obama fights the invisible enemies of time and distance as well as the
fanatics of al-Qaeda. Polls show falling support for the war, which
can only reflect a lessening of the grip that the memory of the events
of Sept. 11, 2001, exerts on Americans.
Many of us experience this lessening, I suspect, even if we resist it.
As I walked along the Potomac on a sparkling recent November morning,
a familiar double-edged thought occurred to me: The sky is as clear as
it was Sept. 11. Will a new horror befall us on another such day? Then
I realized I had been walking for 10 minutes before that chilling
specter arrived.
For a long time, the first glimpse or two of a pristine cloudless sky
over the Federal City would take me instantly back to the day that
shaped the rest of the decade. Now, memory takes its own time to
appear, becoming more a matter of reflection than reflex. We adjust
even to this, I think unhappily.
Einstein suggested that the splitting of the atom changed everything
except the way we think. Perhaps the same will be true of Sept. 11. In
his speech, the president recognized the challenge presented to his
policies by the passage of time:
"It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound
together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack. . . . I refuse to
accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again."
But his speech did not immediately have that unifying effect. Most
members of Congress quickly found points on which to disagree and,
while not attacking Obama, take self-protective distance from the
president's surge. Politically, Obama got away with selling a new
strategy that deserves to be tried -- for a while.
He also received modest support from NATO, led by Italy's contribution
of 1,000 new soldiers and new Polish and British deployments. But
Germany stalled, and France said that it could not spare any more of
its overstretched forces. Left unsaid was the fact that President
Nicolas Sarkozy is in no mood to do Obama favors after a series of ill-
advised rebuffs by the U.S. leader to the Frenchman, who went out of
his way to help Obama during the 2008 U.S. campaign.
More significantly, Sarkozy is increasingly concerned about the
"Americanization" of the war in Afghanistan. The new influx of GIs
will compound command-and-control problems for the other foreign units
and make them even more dependent on American tactics and strategy.
That is part of the context that Obama's new strategy does not
directly address. An even more striking omission Tuesday night was any
in-depth discussion of the civilian surge that is supposed to
accompany the military buildup and provide improved living conditions
and better governance.
The subject was minimized, I suspect, because there is not yet
agreement among the president's advisers or NATO members on how the
present ineffective flow of financial aid and technical support from
abroad for President Hamid Karzai's government should be reorganized.
Progress has been made on establishing an international watchdog
agency in Kabul to fight corruption. But there are strong head winds
from Europe against administration suggestions that one strong U.S.-
led authority should now take charge of and coordinate civilian
programs, including those of the United Nations, in Afghanistan.
Finally, the president's new strategy fails to emphasize that the
context of the events of Sept. 11 endures, and constrains his actions,
even as the force of that day's events fades.
It is a context of Islamic extremism nurtured not only in Afghanistan
and neighboring Pakistan but also in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and
other countries that the United States finds impossible to invade or
strike. We are condemned to fight al-Qaeda on the ground in
Afghanistan with greater and greater force because we cannot fight it
directly on the battlefield elsewhere. Welcome to Obama's Catch-22.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403076.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Regarding the Dec. 2 front-page article "Obama: U.S. security is still
at stake":
From all sides, the illogical criticism is being made that the
president's exit strategy in Afghanistan will merely encourage the
Taliban "to lay low until we leave." Lay low? Let the United States
and its allies sally forth with little or no resistance? Let them
carry out, hardly disturbed, their projects for improving Afghans'
lives? Let them conduct, hardly disturbed, the security training of
ever more Afghans to take over as we deploy out?
Moreover, the announced exit strategy is good psychological warfare.
It says to the Taliban: "Your days are numbered." Far from encouraging
them to await our departure, it may encourage some among them to start
thinking that maybe the Taliban's prospects aren't very bright.
Edward M. Cohen, Arlington
As 30,000 more troops descend upon Afghanistan, what will the Taliban
do?
Fight? Maybe. Retreat to their caves? Most probably, only to reemerge
as the United States withdraws, and continue to do what they do best.
This exercise is not worth $1 from our Treasury or one precious
American life.
Why can't we let the Afghans take care of the Afghans, while we tend
to our own affairs?
June Schmitz, Hyattsville
Eugene Robinson's Dec. 4 column, "Down the wrong path in Afghanistan,"
is typical of the tunnel vision of the antiwar left. It is in the same
category as those random signs saying "War is Not the Answer." If war
is not the answer, what is?
Mr. Robinson enumerated the horrors of terrorism, Thursday's suicide
bombing in Somalia, and the difficulties of finding and confronting al-
Qaeda, but he offered no solutions. What actions do Mr. Robinson and
his cohorts on the left want President Obama to take? Apparently they
want us to declare victory and go home to await the next Sept. 11.
Michael Hoxie, Kensington
With our armed forces stretched to the breaking point and an endless
war in Afghanistan in sight, it is time to give serious thought to
restoring the draft. Unfortunately, the concept of a volunteer armed
force lets the average American avoid the costs of war, except through
taxes. If our national security is truly at stake in remote lands such
as Iraq and Afghanistan, the burden of fighting should be shared by
all, including the sons and daughters of members of Congress.
J. Norvill Jones, Alexandria
With all the recent columns and comments about Afghanistan, Tom
Toles's Dec. 2 cartoon probably was the sharpest. The escalation of
the war, which I oppose, will lead to a one-term presidency for
President Obama. I voted and campaigned for him. Never again.
Mark Berman, Cabin John
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404167.html
bademiyansubhanallah
SLIDESHOW Previous Next
By BEN EVANS
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 5, 2009; 5:06 AM
WASHINGTON -- The switchboards and e-mail inboxes of members of
Congress are not seeing much of a surge from President Barack Obama's
plan to send more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
Health care and Wall Street bailouts? Those issues light up the phones
and get the digital juices flowing.
But lawmakers from across the political spectrum say their
constituents seem to be too war-weary or preoccupied with matters at
home to be making their voices heard in large numbers on Obama's troop
increase.
The tepid response is a marked difference from three years ago, when
President George W. Bush's decision to send more troops into a bogged-
down Iraq war roiled the Capitol for months and prompted widespread
protests.
"I think people are distracted, rightfully so, with economic issues,"
said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Congressional
Black Caucus and the only lawmaker to vote against the original
Afghanistan war authorization in 2001. "It's a very desperate
situation. People are losing their health care and their jobs."
Obama announced that he will send 30,000 additional troops into the
war, now in its ninth year, and set a timeline for starting troop
withdrawals in July 2011. The increase will put U.S. troop strength at
about 100,000 - nearly three times more than when Obama took office.
The public's muted reaction is being mirrored by Congress. There's an
air of resignation among lawmakers and little talk of trying to block
or make significant changes to Obama's plan. Even liberals who
disagree with the president have measured their criticisms, while
conservatives who support a troop buildup were left with little choice
but to go along.
Rep. John Simkus, R-Ill., a West Point graduate, surveyed his
constituents in his weekly newsletter. He heard back from 117, of whom
85 said they supported Obama's decision.
Lawmakers said the calls they're getting have been mixed, with the
most vocal commentary coming from critics of Obama's plan.
Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, who represents a large military
constituency around Colorado Springs, Colo., reported getting about a
dozen calls immediately following the president's speech. The most
consistent message was, "Don't get us involved in another Vietnam,"
said Lamborn spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen.
Charles Tatje, 58, a mushroom grower in Fountain, Colo., called
Lamborn to say Obama was "trying to walk the middle of the road and
appease everybody."
He criticized the president for not fulfilling an initial
recommendation from generals for about 40,000 troops.
"You wouldn't give a building contractor 75 percent of the materials
he needs and then tell him to get the job done," Tatje said.
Tom Cooper, 68, a retired aerospace consultant whose son and daughter-
in-law are Army officers who have served in Afghanistan, also called
Lamborn's office to say the president "would be better off to bring
everybody home" rather than to send fewer troops than initially
recommended.
Cooper said he believes Obama also gave the Taliban too much
information by setting a timeline for troop withdrawals.
Janis Traven of Seattle, who described herself as a community
organizer and political activist, said she called Democratic Rep. Jim
McDermott's office to stand by him for his opposition to the troop
increase.
"I have a terrible sinking feeling about the likelihood of success,"
said Traven, 57.
Just three people called the office of Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill. Two were
against the troop increase and one for it. The office received eight e-
mails calling for troops to come home. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., got 61
calls and e-mails, his office said, about a quarter of the volume it
received on health care reform over the same time.
Lee and another leading war critic, Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., said
they weren't interpreting the lack of an outcry as a sign of support.
Lee pointed to polls such as one by the Pew Research Center that found
just 32 percent of respondents favored sending more troops into
Afghanistan, while 40 percent wanted fewer.
It's not as if people aren't paying attention. Nearly 41 million
people watched Obama's speech on Tuesday, his largest audience since
he addressed a joint session of Congress on health care on Feb. 24,
according to Nielsen Co.
"I think there's a deep concern about what our policy is over there,"
McGovern said. "People do not want to get sucked deeper into this war.
They just don't quite know how to deal with it."
Still, lawmakers said the war - started shortly after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks that were plotted on Afghan soil and carried out by al-
Qaida - has a different dynamic than the Iraq conflict.
Obama played up the 9/11 connection to Afghanistan in his speech,
although he did not mention Osama bin Laden by name. He also appears
to have quelled some criticism by proposing the troop withdrawal
timeline, although administration officials have since acknowledged
that there is no fixed date for withdrawals.
Associated Press writers Joan Lowy, Andrew Miga, Frederic J. Frommer,
Dennis Conrad and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR2009120500791.html
bademiyansubhanallah
PHOTOS
In Taliban Country
The story of the Taliban's fall and rise, in their own words.
Map: Pakistan and Afghanistan's Taliban Country
By John J. Mearsheimer | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 5, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Dec 7, 2009
In the beginning, Afghanistan looked like a good war. The United
States won a quick victory, drove the Taliban and Al Qaeda out, and
installed a friendly government. The results seemed so impressive that
even before the fighting stopped, the Bush administration decided to
replicate the model in Iraq.
But the victory was a mirage. Contrary to what most Americans thought,
the United States had jumped into a quagmire in Afghanistan. The root
of the problem is simple: a superpower can often topple a hostile
regime with relative ease, but then it morphs into an occupying power
without an exit strategy. And that usually generates an insurgency.
This problem was not immediately apparent in Afghanistan because the
United States overthrew the Taliban with a combination of air power,
local allies, and small Special Forces units—not a large-scale
invasion. Thus when the fighting ended, the United States didn't look
like an occupier, at least at first. Washington then helped place
Hamid Karzai in charge, hoping he would pacify Afghanistan without
much U.S. help.
These optimistic expectations were soon dashed, however. The Taliban
was not decisively defeated, and many of its leaders and fighters
melted into the local population or escaped to Pakistan. The Karzai
government turned out to be incompetent and corrupt, and never had
much influence outside Kabul. It was no match for the Taliban, which
began to reestablish itself.
All of this meant that the United States and its NATO allies had to
take on the Taliban again. But this time, they would need large
numbers of ground forces and would become an occupying power propping
up an unpopular regime. Between October 2004 and October 2006, U.S.
and NATO troops spread out into every region of the country. Not
surprisingly, that bigger footprint helped fuel the insurgency,
creating today's dire situation.
The Obama administration spent the fall desperately trying to find a
solution. But no policy can stave off defeat in Afghanistan. Even with
more troops and better tactics, the U.S. military cannot decisively
defeat the Taliban, because it is a shadowy guerrilla force that can
always melt away and come back to fight another day. The local
population will not side with Karzai or the United States much longer,
because they know Karzai is a loser and NATO—unlike the Taliban—will
eventually leave.
Even if the U.S. military does pacify Afghanistan, moreover, Al Qaeda
will still have its sanctuary next door in Pakistan. And Washington
will face the same problem it did before 9/11; after all, those
attacks could just as easily have been planned from Pakistan.
The only viable strategy for Afghanistan is thus the one President
Obama will not seriously contemplate: acknowledge defeat and pull out
completely. Yet that's precisely what Washington should do, while
making it clear that it will leave the Taliban alone if it keeps Al
Qaeda out. If the Taliban refuses, Predator drones should be
sufficient to keep the jihadis at bay—or take them out.
The real key to preventing another 9/11, however, is for the United
States to work closely with other governments to monitor Al Qaeda and
round up terrorists before they strike. Timely intelligence and sound
police work are the main reasons that there has not been another
attack on the U.S. homeland. The war in Afghanistan has done little to
make Americans safer at home, and prolonging it won't either. It's
been a bad war from the start and will be to the bitter end.
Mearsheimer is a West Point graduate and a professor of political
science at the University of Chicago.
© 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/225639
bademiyansubhanallah
Editorial: Exit, stage right
By now, President Obama is probably tired of hearing people quote him
that old saw about knowing you must be right when both sides in an
argument disagree with you.
How strange it must be for him to hear the Democrats' archnemesis,
Karl Rove, with only a few caveats, voice his approval of the
Afghanistan strategy the president announced Tuesday night.
Imagine Obama's discomfort when hearing that organizations like the
Parliament of World Religions, which met last week in Melbourne,
Australia, had denounced him. Rabbi Michael Lerner said the group was
"in partial mourning for the dream of a new world that President Obama
promised, and decisively torpedoed" with his speech at West Point.
Painted as a lefty idealist by conservative critics, Obama once again
has shown he is above all pragmatic. He has carefully calculated a
route that he believes will bring peace to Afghanistan and stability
to Pakistan, while acknowledging that neither goal may be achieved
before U.S. troops start coming home.
His flexible exit date predictably raised the ire of knee-jerk Obama
haters. While commending Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to
Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) dumped on the goal to begin
reducing U.S. troop strength by July 2011. If the date is subject to
change, "then it makes no sense . . . to have announced the date,"
McCain said.
But the senator also said, "The exit strategy should be dictated by
conditions on the ground," which practically mirrored Obama's words in
his West Point speech: "Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute
this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the
ground."
It appears that it's not so much the exit as it is the designation of
an exit date that concerns McCain. He and other Republicans say that
gives the Taliban incentive to sit tight and wait for U.S. troops to
leave. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Wednesday to the
Senate Armed Services Committee, assured the lawmakers that coalition
forces won't be sitting tight as well.
It made sense for Obama to specify an exit goal, and not just to
appease those fellow Democrats who are being very vocal in opposing
his escalation of the war. The message is more importantly addressed
to the people of Afghanistan, who time and again over the decades have
shown how much they despise occupying forces. Just as in Iraq, they
need to know that is not our intent.
And, as Obama stressed at West Point, it is important for the Hamid
Karzai government to know the clock is ticking, too. "The days of
providing a blank check are over," Obama said. "We will support Afghan
ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and
deliver for the people." That's a sound strategy that will allow our
eventual exit.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20091206_Editorial__Exit__stage_right.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Al-Qaeda rids itself of an Iraqi nemesis
By Lara Jakes
Associated Press
BAGHDAD - He compared al-Qaeda in Iraq to wolves, urging that the
terrorist group be crushed since he believed its members would never
reject violence.
On Thursday, the wolves finally got to the Iraqi counterterrorism
officer.
Ahmed Subhi al-Fahal's death in a suicide bombing in Tikrit could
embolden al-Qaeda loyalists to try to make a return to the area around
Saddam Hussein's hometown where Fahal held sway.
Yesterday, within hours of his killing, dozens of Web sites affiliated
with al-Qaeda in Iraq were celebrating the death of their longtime
nemesis.
The attack also stood as a reminder that Iraqi security officials who
work closely with American forces remain prime targets for insurgents
even as overall violence in Iraq fades.
The bombing, outside a goldsmith's store, also killed two of Fahal's
bodyguards and two bystanders in Tikrit - which holds symbolic
significance for the Sunni-led insurgents because of its connection
with Hussein.
Fahal, in his 30s, was a lieutenant colonel in the Salahuddin
provincial police force. But he was mostly known, by al-Qaeda and the
American military alike, as one of central Iraq's top counterterror
officials, bent on purging insurgents from his turf.
"It is better to kill al-Qaeda's members because it is no use to
reform them," Fahal said in a recent interview with Al-Arabiya TV. He
was paraphrasing a religious saying that there is no use in trying to
reform wolves - instead, they must be killed.
And kill them he did.
In his interview, Fahal said he had killed more than 250 al-Qaeda
terrorists: 200 Iraqis and 50 foreign Arab fighters.
He was also thrown into the most difficult missions.
It was Fahal who was called in to track down 16 prisoners - including
several al-Qaeda-linked inmates awaiting execution - who escaped in a
stunning September jailbreak in Tikrit that deeply embarrassed Iraqi
officials.
Most of the prisoners were recaptured, but Fahal said two escaped and
at least one suspected al-Qaeda member was killed.
Fahal had a particularly good relationship with U.S. forces, who let
him and his officers work out of Hussein's old palaces in Tikrit. When
he was advanced to the rank of lieutenant colonel earlier this year,
the U.S. brigade commander who was then in charge of the American
forces in the area threw a promotion party at his headquarters for
Fahal.
"He was controversial, flamboyant, brave, and effective," Col. Walt
Piatt wrote in an e-mail message yesterday from the United States
after hearing of his former colleague's killing. "He single-handedly
disrupted numerous enemy plots during the last election. He was the go-
to-guy in the province."
Violence in Iraq has fallen dramatically over the last two years after
the surge of U.S. forces and after Sunni Arab tribes turned against al-
Qaeda in Iraq, particularly in western areas once part of the
insurgent heartland.
Still, U.S.-allied security forces and religious leaders who speak out
against insurgents continue to be targeted.
In October, a bomb hidden inside a mosque killed Imam Narjis Shiwash
during prayers in a mostly Sunni village south of Mosul, which is
considered the last urban stronghold for al-Qaeda in Iraq. In early
November, twin car bombs targeted police in the western city of
Ramadi, killing one officer.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78584682.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Marines stage airborne assault to disrupt Taliban supply lines
By Alfred De Montesquiou
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan - U.S. Marines swooped down behind Taliban lines in
helicopters and Osprey aircraft yesterday in the first offensive since
President Obama announced an American troop surge.
About 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops were taking part in
"Operation Cobra's Anger" in a bid to disrupt Taliban supply and
communications lines in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province in
southern Afghanistan, the scene of heavy fighting last summer,
according to a Marine spokesman, Maj. William Pelletier.
Hundreds of troops from the Third Battalion, Fourth Marines, and the
Marine reconnaissance unit Task Force Raider dropped by helicopters
and MV-22 Osprey aircraft into the northern end of the valley while a
second, larger Marine force pushed northward from the main Marine base
in the town of Now Zad, Pelletier said.
A U.S. military official in Washington said it was the first use of
Ospreys, aircraft that combine features of helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft, in an offensive involving units larger than platoons.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Ospreys
had previously been used for intelligence and patrol operations.
Combat engineers used armored steamrollers and explosives to force a
corridor through Taliban minefields - known as "IED Alley" because of
the huge number of roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive
devices, and land mines, Pelletier said.
Roadside bombs and mines have become the biggest killer of American
troops in Afghanistan.
There were no reports of U.S. or Afghan government casualties. The
spokesman for the Afghan governor of Helmand province, Daood Ahmadi,
said that at least four Taliban fighters had been killed and their
bodies recovered.
He said that more than 300 mines and roadside bombs had been located
in the first day of the operation.
Pelletier said insurgents were caught off guard by the early-morning
air assault.
"Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized," Pelletier said by
telephone from Camp Leatherneck, the main Marine base in Helmand.
"They're fighting, but not too effectively."
Yesterday's fighting was taking place in one of the most challenging
areas of the country for the U.S.-led NATO force, which has been
trying for years to break the Taliban grip there.
Now Zad used to be one of the largest towns in Helmand, the center of
Afghanistan's lucrative opium-poppy-growing industry.
However, three years of fighting have chased away Now Zad's 30,000
inhabitants, leaving the once-thriving market and commercial area a
ghost town. Instead, the area has become a major supply and
transportation hub for Taliban forces that use the valley to move
drugs, weapons, and fighters south toward major populations and to
provinces in western Afghanistan.
British troops who were once stationed there left graffiti dubbing the
town "Apocalypse Now-Zad," a play on the title of the 1979 Vietnam War
movie Apocalypse Now. The British base was nearly overrun on several
occasions. The area was handed over in 2008 to the Marines, who have
struggled to reclaim much of the valley.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78584657.html
chhotemianinshallah
Hilary Clinton and David Miliband speaking
Saturday December 5,2009
By Natalie Chalk IT’S the special relationship we have all heard about
– and yesterday Britain and America seemed closer than ever.
When the slightly geeky Foreign Secretary David Miliband sat next to
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, few imagined just how friendly
the pair had become.
Miliband, 44, is a fast-rising MP who was nicknamed Brains by Labour’s
former director of communications Alastair Campbell because of his
likeness to the character in Thunderbirds.
Mrs Clinton, 62, is best known as the former First Lady, who has a
reputation for commanding authority since she took public office
nearly 10 years ago.
Their friendship was captured on camera during talks between Nato
foreign ministers in Brussels. The pair laughed and joked with each
other, with Mrs Clinton gently squeezing Mr Miliband’s shoulder.
Her admiration for her British counterpart became public knowledge
after she told a magazine she was smitten with him.
Speaking to American Vogue, she said: “If you saw him, it would be a
big crush. I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s
really a good guy. And he’s so young!”
Mr Miliband repaid the compliment last month, saying Mrs Clinton was
“delightful to deal with one-on-one. She’s someone who laughs and can
tease and she’s got perspective as well”.The warmth between the pair
was seen during a meeting to decide whether more troops should be sent
to Afghanistan.
Mr Miliband challenged Nato allies to do “the maximum possible” to
support efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan.
Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there were enough pledges to
boost European forces by 7,000 next year. The increase, if translated
into troops on the ground, answers US President Barack Obama’s call
for European allies to do their bit in the wake of an extra 30,000
troops being sent by Washington.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/144207/Britain-s-very-special-relationship
Sid Harth
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
On Veterans Day, President Obama visited a section of Arlington
National Cemetery reserved for service members killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
By PETER BAKER
Published: December 5, 2009
WASHINGTON — On the afternoon he held the eighth meeting of his
Afghanistan review, President Obama arrived in the White House
Situation Room ruminating about war. He had come from Arlington
National Cemetery, where he had wandered among the chalky white
tombstones of those who had fallen in the rugged mountains of Central
Asia.
How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month,
he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll
as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war. Just a
month earlier, he had mentioned to them his visits to wounded soldiers
at the Army hospital in Washington. “I don’t want to be going to
Walter Reed for another eight years,” he said then.
The economic cost was troubling him as well after he received a
private budget memo estimating that an expanded presence would cost $1
trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.
Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options,
Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how
reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and
eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces
would be there for years to come.
“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the
bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out
sooner.
When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the
chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in
chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war.
By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000
troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a
year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock
the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the
fight.
The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is
a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense,
methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for
nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something
“between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”
Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable
demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen
intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned
out thousands of pages of documents.
This account of how the president reached his decision is based on
dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes
some of them took during Mr. Obama’s 10 meetings with his national
security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have
been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.
Mr. Obama devoted so much time to the Afghan issue — nearly 11 hours
on the day after Thanksgiving alone — that he joked, “I’ve got more
deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to
solve this.” He invited competing voices to debate in front of him,
while guarding his own thoughts. Even David Axelrod, arguably his
closest adviser, did not know where Mr. Obama would come out until
just before Thanksgiving.
With the result uncertain, the outsize personalities on his team vied
for his favor, sometimes sharply disagreeing as they made their
arguments. The White House suspected the military of leaking details
of the review to put pressure on the president. The military and the
State Department suspected the White House of leaking to undercut the
case for more troops. The president erupted at the leaks with an anger
advisers had rarely seen, but he did little to shut down the public
clash within his own government.
“The president welcomed a full range of opinions and invited contrary
points of view,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an
interview last month. “And I thought it was a very healthy experience
because people took him up on it. And one thing we didn’t want — to
have a decision made and then have somebody say, ‘Oh, by the way.’ No,
come forward now or forever hold your peace.”
The decision represents a complicated evolution in Mr. Obama’s
thinking. He began the process clearly skeptical of Gen. Stanley A.
McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops, but the more he learned
about the consequences of failure, and the more he narrowed the
mission, the more he gravitated toward a robust if temporary buildup,
guided in particular by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Yet even now, he appears ambivalent about what some call “Obama’s
war.” Just two weeks before General McChrystal warned of failure at
the end of August, Mr. Obama described Afghanistan as a “war of
necessity.” When he announced his new strategy last week, those words
were nowhere to be found. Instead, while recommitting to the war on Al
Qaeda, he made clear that the larger struggle for Afghanistan had to
be balanced against the cost in blood and treasure and brought to an
end.
Aides, though, said the arduous review gave Mr. Obama comfort that he
had found the best course he could. “The process was exhaustive, but
any time you get the president of the United States to devote 25
hours, anytime you get that kind of commitment, you know it was
serious business,” said Gen. James L. Jones, the president’s national
security adviser. “From the very first meeting, everyone started with
set opinions. And no opinion was the same by the end of the process.”
Taking Control of a War
Mr. Obama ran for president supportive of the so-called good war in
Afghanistan and vowing to send more troops, but he talked about it
primarily as a way of attacking Republicans for diverting resources to
Iraq, which he described as a war of choice. Only after taking office,
as casualties mounted and the Taliban gained momentum, did Mr. Obama
really begin to confront what to do.
Even before completing a review of the war, he ordered the military to
send 21,000 more troops there, bringing the force to 68,000. But
tension between the White House and the military soon emerged when
General Jones, a retired Marine four-star general, traveled to
Afghanistan in the summer and was surprised to hear officers already
talking about more troops. He made it clear that no more troops were
in the offing.
With the approach of Afghanistan’s presidential election in August,
Mr. Obama’s two new envoys — Richard C. Holbrooke, the president’s
special representative to the region, and Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry,
a retired commander of troops in Afghanistan now serving as ambassador
— warned of trouble, including the possibility of angry Afghans
marching on the American Embassy or outright civil war.
“There are 10 ways this can turn out,” one administration official
said, summing up the envoys’ presentation, “and 9 of them are messy.”
The worst did not happen, but widespread fraud tainted the election
and shocked some in the White House as they realized that their
partner in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai, was hopelessly compromised
in terms of public credibility.
At the same time, the Taliban kept making gains. The Central
Intelligence Agency drew up detailed maps in August charting the
steady progression of the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, maps that
would later be used extensively during the president’s review. General
McChrystal submitted his own dire assessment of the situation, warning
of “mission failure” without a fresh infusion of troops.
While General McChrystal did not submit a specific troop request at
that point, the White House knew it was coming and set out to figure
out what to do. General Jones organized a series of meetings that he
envisioned lasting a few weeks. Before each one, he convened a
rehearsal session to impose discipline — “get rid of the chaff,” one
official put it — that included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Gates and other cabinet-level officials. Mr. Biden
made a practice of writing a separate private memo to Mr. Obama before
each meeting, outlining his thoughts.
The first meeting with the president took place on Sept. 13, a Sunday,
and was not disclosed to the public that day. For hours, Mr. Obama and
his top advisers pored through intelligence reports.
Unsatisfied, the president posed a series of questions: Does America
need to defeat the Taliban to defeat Al Qaeda? Can a counterinsurgency
strategy work in Afghanistan given the problems with its government?
If the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan, would nuclear-armed
Pakistan be next?
The deep skepticism he expressed at that opening session was
reinforced by Mr. Biden, who rushed back overnight from a California
trip to participate. Just as he had done in the spring, Mr. Biden
expressed opposition to an expansive strategy requiring a big troop
influx. Instead, he put an alternative on the table — rather than
focus on nation building and population protection, do more to disrupt
the Taliban, improve the quality of the training of Afghan forces and
expand reconciliation efforts to peel off some Taliban fighters.
Mr. Biden quickly became the most outspoken critic of the expected
McChrystal troop request, arguing that Pakistan was the bigger
priority, since that is where Al Qaeda is mainly based. “He was the
bull in the china shop,” said one admiring administration official.
But others were nodding their heads at some of what he was saying,
too, including General Jones and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief
of staff.
A Review Becomes News
The quiet review burst into public view when General McChrystal’s
secret report was leaked to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post a week
after the first meeting. The general’s grim assessment jolted
Washington and lent urgency to the question of what to do to avoid
defeat in Afghanistan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen.
David H. Petraeus, the regional commander, secretly flew to an
American air base in Germany for a four-hour meeting with General
McChrystal on Sept. 25. He handed them his troop request on paper —
there were no electronic versions and barely 20 copies in all.
The request outlined three options for different missions: sending
80,000 more troops to conduct a robust counterinsurgency campaign
throughout the country; 40,000 troops to reinforce the southern and
eastern areas where the Taliban are strongest; or 10,000 to 15,000
troops mainly to train Afghan forces.
General Petraeus took one copy, while Admiral Mullen took two back to
Washington and dropped one off at Mr. Gates’s home next to his in a
small military compound in Washington. But no one sent the document to
the White House, intending to process it through the Pentagon review
first.
Mr. Obama was focused on another report. At 10 p.m. on Sept. 29, he
called over from the White House residence to the West Wing to ask for
a copy of the first Afghanistan strategy he approved in March to ramp
up the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban while increasing
civilian assistance. A deputy national security adviser, Denis
McDonough, brought him a copy to reread overnight. When his national
security team met the next day, Mr. Obama complained that elements of
that plan had never been enacted.
The group went over the McChrystal assessment and drilled in on what
the core goal should be. Some thought that General McChrystal
interpreted the March strategy more ambitiously than it was intended
to be. Mr. Biden asked tough questions about whether there was any
intelligence showing that the Taliban posed a threat to American
territory. But Mr. Obama also firmly closed the door on any
withdrawal. “I just want to say right now, I want to take off the
table that we’re leaving Afghanistan,” he told his advisers.
Tension with the military had been simmering since the leak of the
McChrystal report, which some in the White House took as an attempt to
box in the president. The friction intensified on Oct. 1 when the
general was asked after a speech in London whether a narrower mission,
like the one Mr. Biden proposed, would succeed. “The short answer is
no,” he said.
White House officials were furious, and Mr. Gates publicly scolded
advisers who did not keep their advice to the president private. The
furor rattled General McChrystal, who, unlike General Petraeus, was
not a savvy Washington operator. And it stunned others in the
military, who were at first “bewildered by how over the top the
reaction was from the White House,” as one military official put it.
It also proved to be what one review participant called a “head-
snapping” moment of revelation for the military. The president, they
suddenly realized, was not simply updating his previous strategy but
essentially starting over from scratch.
The episode underscored the uneasy relationship between the military
and a new president who, aides said, was determined not to be as
deferential as he believed his predecessor, George W. Bush, was for
years in Iraq. And the military needed to adjust to a less experienced
but more skeptical commander in chief. “We’d been chugging along for
eight years under an administration that had become very adept at
managing war in a certain way,” said another military official.
Moreover, Mr. Obama had read “Lessons in Disaster,” Gordon M.
Goldstein’s book on the Vietnam War. The book had become a must read
in the West Wing after Mr. Emanuel had dinner over the summer at the
house of another deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon,
and wandered into his library to ask what he should be reading.
Among the conclusions that Mr. Donilon and the White House team drew
from the book was that both President John F. Kennedy and President
Lyndon B. Johnson failed to question the underlying assumption about
monolithic Communism and the domino theory — clearly driving the Obama
advisers to rethink the nature of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The Pakistan Question
While public attention focused on Afghanistan, some of the most
intensive discussion focused on the country where Mr. Obama could send
no troops — Pakistan. Pushed in particular by Mrs. Clinton, the
president’s team explored the links between the Afghan Taliban, the
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, and Mr. Obama told aides that it did
not matter how many troops were sent to Afghanistan if Pakistan
remained a haven.
Many of the intelligence reports ordered by the White House during the
review dealt with Pakistan’s stability and whether its military and
intelligence services were now committed to the fight or secretly
still supporting Taliban factions. According to two officials, there
was a study of the potential vulnerability of Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons, posing questions about potential insider threats and control
of the warheads if the Pakistani government fell.
Mr. Obama and his advisers also considered options for stepping up the
pursuit of extremists in Pakistan’s border areas. He eventually
approved a C.I.A. request to expand the areas where remotely piloted
aircraft could strike, and other covert action. The trick would be
getting Pakistani consent, which still has not been granted.
On Oct. 9, Mr. Obama and his team reviewed General McChrystal’s troop
proposals for the first time. Some in the White House were surprised
by the numbers, assuming there would be a middle ground between 10,000
and 40,000.
“Why wasn’t there a 25 number?” one senior administration official
asked in an interview. He then answered his own question: “It would
have been too tempting.”
Mr. Gates and others talked about the limits of the American ability
to actually defeat the Taliban; they were an indigenous force in
Afghan society, part of the political fabric. This was a view shared
by others around the table, including Leon E. Panetta, the director of
the C.I.A., who argued that the Taliban could not be defeated as such
and so the goal should be to drive wedges between those who could be
reconciled with the Afghan government and those who could not be.
With Mr. Biden leading the skeptics, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Gates and
Admiral Mullen increasingly aligned behind a more robust force. Mrs.
Clinton wanted to make sure she was a formidable player in the
process. “She was determined that her briefing books would be just as
thick and just as meticulous as those of the Pentagon,” said one
senior adviser. She asked hard questions about Afghan troop training,
unafraid of wading into Pentagon territory.
After a meeting where the Pentagon made a presentation with impressive
color-coded maps, Mrs. Clinton returned to the State Department and
told her aides, “We need maps,” as one recalled. She was overseas
during the next meeting on Oct. 14, when aides used her new maps to
show civilian efforts but she participated with headphones on from her
government plane flying back from Russia.
Mr. Gates was a seasoned hand at such reviews, having served eight
presidents and cycled in and out of the Situation Room since the days
when it was served by a battery of fax machines. Like Mrs. Clinton, he
was sympathetic to General McChrystal’s request, having resolved his
initial concern that a buildup would fuel resentment the way the
disastrous Soviet occupation of Afghanistan did in the 1980s.
But Mr. Gates’s low-wattage exterior masks a wily inside player, and
he knew enough to keep his counsel early in the process to let it play
out more first. “When to speak is important to him; when to signal is
important to him,” said a senior Defense Department official.
On Oct. 22, the National Security Council produced what one official
called a “consensus memo,” much of which originated out of the defense
secretary’s office, concluding that the United States should focus on
diminishing the Taliban insurgency but not destroying it; building up
certain critical ministries; and transferring authority to Afghan
security forces.
There was no consensus yet on troop numbers, however, so Mr. Obama
called a smaller group of advisers together on Oct. 26 to finally
press Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates. Mrs. Clinton made it clear that she
was comfortable with General McChrystal’s request for 40,000 troops or
something close to it; Mr. Gates also favored a big force.
Mr. Obama was leery. He had received a memo the day before from the
Office of Management and Budget projecting that General McChrystal’s
full 40,000-troop request on top of the existing deployment and
reconstruction efforts would cost $1 trillion from 2010 to 2020, an
adviser said. The president seemed in sticker shock, watching his
domestic agenda vanishing in front of him. “This is a 10-year,
trillion-dollar effort and does not match up with our interests,” he
said.
Still, for the first time, he made it clear that he was ready to send
more troops if a strategy could be found to ensure that it was not an
endless war. He indicated that the Taliban had to be beaten back.
“What do we need to break their momentum?” he asked.
Four days later, at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Oct.
30, he emphasized the need for speed. “Why can’t I get the troops in
faster?” he asked. If they were going to do this, he concluded, it
only made sense to do this quickly, to have impact and keep the war
from dragging on forever. “This is America’s war,” he said. “But I
don’t want to make an open-ended commitment.”
Bridging the Differences
Now that he had a sense of where Mr. Obama was heading, Mr. Gates
began shaping a plan that would bridge the differences. He developed a
30,000-troop option that would give General McChrystal the bulk of his
request, reasoning that NATO could make up most of the difference.
“If people are having trouble swallowing 40, let’s see if we can make
this smaller and easier to swallow and still give the commander what
he needs,” a senior Defense official said, summarizing the secretary’s
thinking.
The plan, called Option 2A, was presented to the president on Nov. 11.
Mr. Obama complained that the bell curve would take 18 months to get
all the troops in place.
He turned to General Petraeus and asked him how long it took to get
the so-called surge troops he commanded in Iraq in 2007. That was six
months.
“What I’m looking for is a surge,” Mr. Obama said. “This has to be a
surge.”
That represented a contrast from when Mr. Obama, as a presidential
candidate, staunchly opposed President Bush’s buildup in Iraq. But
unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama wanted from the start to speed up a
withdrawal as well. The military was told to come up with a plan to
send troops quickly and then begin bringing them home quickly.
And in another twist, Mr. Obama, who campaigned as an apostle of
transparency and had been announcing each Situation Room meeting
publicly and even releasing pictures, was livid that details of the
discussions were leaking out.
“What I’m not going to tolerate is you talking to the press outside of
this room,” he scolded his advisers. “It’s a disservice to the
process, to the country and to the men and women of the military.”
His advisers sat in uncomfortable silence. That very afternoon,
someone leaked word of a cable sent by Ambassador Eikenberry from
Kabul expressing reservations about a large buildup of forces as long
as the Karzai government remained unreformed. At one of their
meetings, General Petraeus had told Mr. Obama to think of elements of
the Karzai government like “a crime syndicate.” Ambassador Eikenberry
was suggesting, in effect, that America could not get in bed with the
mob.
The leak of Ambassador Eikenberry’s Nov. 6 cable stirred another storm
within the administration because the cable had been requested by the
White House. The National Security Council had told the ambassador to
put his views in writing. But someone else then passed word of the
cable to reporters in what some in the process took to be a calculated
attempt to head off a big troop buildup.
The cable stunned some in the military. The reaction at the Pentagon,
said one official, was “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” — military slang for an
expression of shock. Among the officers caught off guard were General
McChrystal and his staff, for whom the cable was “a complete
surprise,” said another official, even though the commander and the
ambassador meet three times a week.
A Presidential Order
By this point, the idea of some sort of time frame was taking on
momentum. Mrs. Clinton talked to Mr. Karzai before the Afghan leader’s
inauguration to a second term. She suggested that he use his speech to
outline a schedule for taking over security of the country.
Mr. Karzai did just that, declaring that Afghan forces directed by
Kabul would take charge of securing population centers in three years
and the whole country in five. His pronouncement, orchestrated partly
by Mrs. Clinton and diplomats in Kabul, provided a predicate for Mr.
Obama to set out his own time frame.
The president gathered his team in the Situation Room at 8:15 p.m. on
Nov. 23, the unusual nighttime hour adding to what one participant
called a momentous wartime feeling. The room was strewn with coffee
cups and soda cans.
Mr. Obama presented a revised version of Option 2A, this one titled
“Max Leverage,” pushing 30,000 troops into Afghanistan by mid-2010 and
beginning to pull them out by July 2011. Admiral Mullen came up with
the date at the direction of Mr. Obama, despite some misgivings from
the Pentagon about setting a time frame for a withdrawal. The date was
two years from the arrival of the first reinforcements Mr. Obama sent
shortly after taking office. Mr. Biden had written a memo before the
meeting talking about the need for “proof of concept” — in other
words, two years ought to be enough for extra troops to demonstrate
whether a buildup would work.
The president went around the room asking for opinions. Mr. Biden
again expressed skepticism, even at this late hour when the tide had
turned against him in terms of the troop number. But he had succeeded
in narrowing the scope of the mission to protect population centers
and setting the date to begin withdrawal. Others around the table
concurred with the plan. Mr. Obama spoke last, but still somewhat
elliptically. Some advisers said they walked out into the night after
10 p.m., uncertain whether the president had actually endorsed the Max
Leverage option or was just testing for reaction.
Two days later, Mr. Obama met with Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker and
a critic of the Afghan war. The president outlined his plans for the
buildup without disclosing specific numbers. Ms. Pelosi was
unenthusiastic and pointedly told the president that he could not rely
on Democrats alone to pass financing for the war.
The White House had spent little time courting Congress to this point.
Even though it would need Republican support, the White House had made
no overtures to the party leaders.
But there was back-channel contact. Mr. Emanuel was talking with
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who urged him to
settle on a troop number “that began with 3” to win Republican
support. “I said as long as the generals are O.K. and there is a
meaningful number, you will be O.K.,” Mr. Graham recalled.
The day after Thanksgiving, Mr. Obama huddled with aides from 10:30
a.m. to 9:15 p.m. refining parameters for the plan and mapping out his
announcement. He told his speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, that he wanted to
directly rebut the comparison with Vietnam.
On the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security
team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He would send
30,000 troops as quickly as possible, then begin the withdrawal in
July 2011. In deference to Mr. Gates’s concerns, the pace and endpoint
of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time.
“I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told
his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was
a pause and no one said anything.
“Tell me now,” he repeated.
Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr.
Gates and others signaled agreement.
“Fully support, sir,” Admiral Mullen said.
“Ditto,” General Petraeus said.
Mr. Obama then went to the Situation Room to call General McChrystal
and Ambassador Eikenberry. The president made it clear that in the
next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops.
“It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we
draw down,” he said.
Two days later, Mr. Obama flew to West Point to give his speech. After
three months of agonizing review, he seemed surprisingly serene. “He
was,” said one adviser, “totally at peace.”
Reporting was contributed by Elisabeth Bumiller, Helene Cooper,
Carlotta Gall, Carl Hulse, Mark Landler, Mark Mazzetti, David E.
Sanger, Eric Schmitt, Scott Shane and Thom Shanker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?em=&pagewanted=all
Sid Harth
By REUTERS
Published: December 6, 2009
Filed at 12:01 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Sunday
his government would fight corruption and work to be a good partner in
the U.S. war strategy while urging allies to be patient if his country
could not assume security responsibilities soon.
U.S. President Barack Obama announced last week he would send another
30,000 troops to Afghanistan but would begin bringing them home in 18
months and start handing off responsibilities to Afghan forces.
"Afghanistan welcomes this new strategy, and Afghanistan will do all
it can to be a good partner in it," Karzai said in an interview with
CNN.
He said the Afghans would try their best to take over security of the
country within the U.S. timetable.
"But the international community must have also the patience with us
and the realization of the realities in Afghanistan. If it takes
longer, then they must be with us," he said.
Obama, who faces criticism from his fellow Democrats and opposition
Republicans about the decision, put pressure on Karzai to root out
corruption in his administration.
Obama said in a televised speech on Tuesday that the day of providing
a "blank check" to Kabul were over.
Karzai said he was addressing the problem, but accused some unnamed
allies of overemphasizing the issue.
"The issue of corruption has been politically overplayed by some of
our partners in the international community," he said.
Asked whether he planned to fire corrupt officials, Karzai said, "I
have fired people, and I will be firing people, yes."
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/06/world/international-us-usa-afghanistan-karzai.html
Sid Harth
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says would 'go and get' bin Laden if
it could gather reliable information on his whereabouts
VOA News 06 December 2009
Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifies on Capitol Hill in
Washington, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on
Afghanistan, 03 Dec 2009
"U.S. would go and get bin Laden if it could gather reliable
information on his location," says Gates
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says it has been "years" since the
United States had good intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin
Laden.
In interviews broadcast Sunday on U.S. news programs, Gates, Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser James Jones all
emphasized the importance of killing or capturing the al-Qaida
leader.
Jones said U.S. intelligence suggests bin Laden is in Pakistan's North
Waziristan tribal agency, although he said there are indications that
the al-Qaida leader also spends time in remote mountains across the
border in Afghanistan.
Pakistani officials have long insisted bin Laden is not in their
country. Despite the disagreement, Clinton said Pakistanis have
significantly changed their views on terrorism and now see militant
groups as a growing threat to their nation.
U.S. officials Sunday also defended President Barack Obama's decision
to first send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before beginning
to withdraw forces in about 18 months.
They said that deadline is not firm, but will be based on conditions
in Afghanistan.
They also said the president's July 2011 withdrawal date sends a
message to the Afghan government about the importance of quickly
building-up its security forces.
Afghan and U.S. officials are emphasizing the importance of holding
peace talks with Taliban factions willing to give up violence and join
the political process.
Clinton says she is "highly skeptical" that any of the current Taliban
leaders would be ready to accept such conditions before holding
talks. Gates said prospects for talks will improve if U.S. and Afghan
forces can reverse the insurgents' momentum on the battlefield.
The international force in Afghanistan says it carried out an air
strike early Sunday in Laghman province, killing a group of
militants. The force also says a U.S. soldier was killed by a bomb in
eastern Afghanistan Saturday.
U.S. Marines launched an operation Friday in the Now Zad valley of
Helmand province to try to disrupt Taliban supply lines. The
operation involves about 1,000 Marines, 150 Afghan troops and an
unspecified number of British soldiers.
Now Zad was once the second biggest town in Helmand, but is now nearly
empty, after residents fled violence. Taliban forces have been using
the area to transport drugs, weapons and fighters.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/war/Gates-No-Good-Intelligence-on-bin-Laden-78631317.html
chhotemianinshallah
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 7, 2009
When he finishes testifying on Capitol Hill this week, Gen. Stanley A.
McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, will
return to Kabul to implement a war strategy that is largely unchanged
after a three-month-long White House review of the conflict.
In interviews and congressional testimony last week, members of
President Obama's national security team said the U.S. effort in
Afghanistan would be more focused and limited. "A good part of the
debate and the discussion," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the
House Armed Services Committee, revolved around ways to "narrow the
mission."
But other than a decision not to immediately double the size of
Afghanistan's uniformed security forces and the president's pledge to
begin withdrawing forces by July 2011, a deadline that has grown less
firm since he announced it -- Gates said Sunday that it might only
involve a "handful" of troops -- the new approach does not order
McChrystal to wage the war in a fundamentally different way from what
he outlined in an assessment he sent the White House in late August.
"Stan's mission really hasn't narrowed," said a senior Pentagon
official involved with Afghanistan policy. "There won't be a radical
change in the way he executes."
McChrystal intends to use the 30,000 U.S. reinforcements authorized by
Obama and as many as 7,000 soldiers pledged by other NATO nations to
protect key cities and towns in southern and eastern parts of the
country, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest. By focusing on
securing population centers, he hopes to reverse enemy momentum,
foster more responsive local government and, where possible, persuade
the Taliban through a mixture of pressure and incentives to lay down
their arms.
In his August assessment, McChrystal said his mission was "defeating
the insurgency," which he defined as "a condition where the insurgency
no longer threatens the viability of the state." But his use of the
word "defeat" in slides displayed during a White House Situation Room
presentation prompted concern among some of the participants that U.S.
goals were too expansive. Eventually, according to U.S. officials
familiar with the process, the participants decided to refine the goal
to degrading the Taliban.
McChrystal's initial assessment was based on the administration's
March strategy, which endorsed a counterinsurgency approach. "What
troubled me fairly early on was that those decisions were being
interpreted fairly broadly as full-scale nation-building and creating
a strong central government in Afghanistan, neither of which was our
intent" Gates told the House Foreign Relations Committee last week.
The military would now "focus our resources where the population is
most threatened," Gates said.
But the narrower mission is unlikely to have much impact in
Afghanistan, where a countrywide nation-building effort was never
seriously pondered. Even before the strategy review, senior military
officials spent most of the summer and early fall moving troops from
remote mountain valleys to cities and towns where the Taliban still
hold considerable sway.
Although the White House has shied away from labeling this phase of
the war a counterinsurgency campaign because of concern that it
connotes nation-building -- "counterinsurgency" was conspicuously
absent from an administration fact sheet about the strategy issued
after Obama's speech -- McChrystal has left little doubt that
counterinsurgency is what he intends to do. He used the word multiple
times in talking to his troops Wednesday morning in Kabul.
Military officials also maintain that he has been emphasizing since he
arrived in Afghanistan in June many of the issues and initiatives now
deemed priorities by the White House, including accelerating the
training of uniformed Afghan security forces, development of community-
defense militias and targeting of development projects to key
population centers.
In southern Afghanistan, where the Obama administration dispatched
nearly 22,000 troops last spring, military commanders and State
Department civilians have already focused their largely limited
reconstruction resources on areas where the new forces are operating.
"Many of the things we are talking about we have already started,"
said Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, who until last summer oversaw the
military reconstruction effort in southern Afghanistan. "We've already
begun a more focused approach."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602377.html?hpid=topnews
chhotemianinshallah
The Associated Press
Sunday, December 6, 2009; 10:29 AM
WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama's
announcement that U.S. troops will begin to leave Afghanistan in July
2011 sends the wrong message to the Taliban and has confused countries
in the region.
The Arizona Republican says the U.S. can make significant progress in
Afghanistan in the next 12 months to 18 months. But he says the U.S.
should be signaling that it will pull its troops from that country
once it has won and broken the Taliban's will.
McCain says that by setting a date for beginning a withdrawal, Obama
has forced Pakistan and other countries in the area to wonder how
supportive they can be of the U.S. effort, since they must consider
what would happen after American forces are gone.
McCain spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120600919.html
chhotemianinshallah
Exclusive: Why Was Afghanistan ‘Neglected?’William R. Hawkins
The debate over how many U.S. troops are needed to stabilize
Afghanistan should have spawned (and still can) a larger discussion
over the role of such campaigns in American global strategy and force
structure. In his televised speech December 1st, President Barack
Obama took a swipe at George W. Bush for not sending enough troops to
Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq, which Obama reminded his
audience he had opposed. It is true that American ground forces were
spread thin by having to fight two wars at once, even within the same
theater of Central Command, which covers the entire Middle East. In
July 2008, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
told Congress, “I don't have troops I can reach for . . . to send into
Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.” But why does
a country with 300 million people and the largest national economy in
the world have a military so small that it cannot fight small,
counterinsurgency wars in two places at once?
It was Obama’s fellow Democratic President Bill Clinton who ordered
drastic cuts in American ground troop strength, leaving his Republican
successor without the combat power needed to sustain long campaigns on
two fronts. In 1990, when the first Gulf war broke out, the Army had
18 divisions. Republican President George H. W. Bush reduced the Army
to 14 divisions in the post-Cold War euphoria. Then Defense Secretary
Dick Cheney called the 14 divisions the “irreducible minimum” needed
to protect American interests. President Clinton then cut the Army
further to 10 divisions.
The last time the Army had only 10 divisions was just before the
Korean War, a conflict for which the country was clearly unprepared.
By 1953, the U.S. had mobilized and deployed 327,000 troops to fight
in Korea, about twice as many as were deployed to Iraq at the height
of the recent surge, and more than triple what will be sent to
Afghanistan. In Vietnam, American military strength peaked at over
540,000 in 1969. Are we a smaller, poorer country that we were half a
century ago? Or is it our will rather than our resources that has
declined?
It was under President Clinton that the “swing strategy” was first
discussed. In this strategy, the U.S. would hold on one front while
forces are concentrated to win on the other, primary front. Then
forces would “swing” from the victorious campaign to reinforce the
secondary front and push on to victory there. The Clinton Pentagon
ceased talking about this strategy out of embarrassment, because it
meant abandoning the “two war” military posture. The force level cuts
quickly made it the only practical response when faced with multiple
challenges. Today, the successful surge in Iraq (which Obama opposed)
now allows forces to “swing” to Afghanistan.
Iraq deserved to be the primary focus of operations. In population,
oil reserves and geographic location, Iraq is of much greater
strategic value than Afghanistan. Militants only gain the power to
upset regional balances or support large scale aggression when they
can seize control of governments and mobilize national resources. Iraq
is a much larger prize to Jihadists than is Afghanistan. It is also
the key to containing Iran – a state radical Islamists did capture in
1979 as President Jimmy Carter stood idle.
In World War II the decision was made to make the defeat of Nazi
Germany the top priority even though it had been Imperial Japan that
had attacked Pearl Harbor. The superior military and economic strength
of Germany made it the more dangerous enemy, so American and allied
forces fighting in Europe had first call on manpower, equipment and
supplies. Once fully mobilized, the U.S. “Arsenal of Democracy” poured
forth the means to defeat Japan only a few months after Germany.
Today, even after a deadly attack on the United States itself followed
by eight years of war, the country is not mobilized. Both the Clinton
and Bush administrations are to blame for this, and their legacy
infects the Obama administration.
A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement released in
February 1996 by the Clinton White House set out what our military
posture should be,
“As a nation with global interests, it is important that the United
States maintain forces with aggregate capabilities on this scale.
Obviously, we seek to avoid a situation in which an aggressor in one
region might be tempted to take advantage when U.S. forces are heavily
committed elsewhere. More basically, maintaining a ’two war’ force
helps ensure that the United States will have sufficient military
capabilities to deter or defeat aggression by a coalition of hostile
powers or by a larger, more capable adversary than we foresee today.”
The problem has been that since the end of the Cold War, insufficient
funding has been devoted to providing what is needed to carry out this
strategy. The Bush administration embraced the post-Cold War “end of
history” hubris in its National Security Strategy of the United States
released in September 2002. “For most of the 20th century, the world
was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian
visions versus freedom and equality. That great struggle is over.” It
boldly, and foolishly, proclaimed, “The militant visions of class,
nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been
defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering
states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and
armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the
embittered few.” Having been entirely carried away by the events of
9/11, it concluded, “A military structured to deter massive Cold War-
era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might
fight rather than where and when a war might occur.”
In other words, the downsizing of the Clinton years would not be
reversed. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had a particular bias
against ground troops and a well documented “minimalist” approach to
war-fighting that nearly led to disaster in Iraq (and did play a major
role in the GOP Congressional debacle of 2006).
Frederick W. Kagan, one of the intellects behind the Iraq surge, wrote
in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006), “Although the Pentagon
officially promises to ‘overmatch’ any potential adversary, a military
policy of ‘just barely enough’ has been the reality since the
beginning of the Bush administration. The 2006 QDR continues in this
mold. It propounds a strategy that only heroes could make succeed…..It
proposes a fundamental reorientation of military capabilities away
from large-scale conventional war and toward irregular war (which
seems to be largely code for insurgency and counterinsurgency) and
counterterrorism.”
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) stated that the armed forces
should be able to "conduct a large-scale, potentially long-duration
irregular warfare campaign including counterinsurgency and security,
stability, transition and reconstruction operations" and "wage two
nearly simultaneous conventional campaigns.” In the case of the
conventional wars, the armed forces would explicitly adopt the “swing”
strategy, fighting to win in the first, but only holding on the second
front until forces could be shifted. The Bush team was honest about
America’s weakened position, but still did nothing to correct it. In
large part, it did not think the U.S. needed to be stronger – an
untenable conclusion given the current contentious state of world
affairs.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has brought this attitude with him into
the Obama administration. He has been arguing for years that
“irregular” warfare will be the main challenge for international
security. He told the House Armed Services Committee May 13th he wants
to “rebalance” U.S. forces “to be prepared for the wars we are most
likely to fight – not just the wars we have been traditionally best
suited to fight.” Exactly a year earlier, he said, “any major weapons
program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and
relevance to...irregular campaigns.” Since then, many major weapons
programs have been cut, most notably the F-22 air superiority fighter
and naval shipbuilding. In “irregular” wars American command of the
air and sea may be taken for granted, but against a rising “peer
competitor” like China they will have to be fought for and we will
need all the combat aircraft, warships and other heavy weapons
American industry can produce.
Gates is right about most future conflicts being “irregular,” but
wrong to let this drive force structure. Insurgencies, civil wars, and
terrorist acts are always more common than large scale interstate
wars. But it is the larger, international wars that determine the
future global political alignment and the balance of power. The Gates
approach will downsize American capabilities at a time when world
politics is entering a period of dangerous flux. New major powers are
entering the arena, old powers are becoming resurgent and regional
“rogue” states are acquiring more advanced weapons. Another era of
major conventional and strategic warfare is on the horizon.
American forces should provide the high-tech, heavy capabilities that
less affluent allies (and adversaries) cannot field. The primary U.S.
role is to deter the intervention of rogue states or peer competitor
into local conflicts, as well as provide the overwhelming power needed
to defeat such state adversaries in a direct confrontation. Only
states have the power to upset regional balances in ways that pose a
strategic threat to vital American interests. It is against such
threats that the U.S. military must be prepared and have always been
best suited. We must not focus so much on Afghanistan that we neglect
the larger forces at work in the world.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a
consultant specializing in international economic and national
security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican
Congressional staff member.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4948/pub_detail.asp
Sid Harth
By Peter Beinart Monday, Dec. 07, 2009
ENLARGE PHOTO+
A group of U.S. Marine preparing for a mission in Farah province,
Afghanistan, in October.
David Furst / AFP / Getty
To understand Barack Obama's Afghanistan decision, it's instructive to
go back to one history-shifting sentence, uttered by his predecessor
more than eight years ago. It was Sept. 20, 2001. The nation was in
agony, and George W. Bush stood before a joint session of Congress,
telling Americans where to direct their rage. "Americans are asking,
'Who attacked our country?'" Bush declared early in his remarks. "The
evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely
affiliated terrorist organizations known as al-Qaeda."
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
Had Bush stopped there, everything would be different today. But a few
minutes later, he made this fateful pivot: "Our war on terror begins
with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there." After that, Bush mentioned
terror, terrorists or terrorism 18 times more. But he didn't mention
al-Qaeda again. When he returned to Congress a few months later for
his January 2002 State of the Union address, he cited Hamas,
Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, North Korea, Iran and Iraq and employed
variations of the word terror 34 times. But he mentioned al-Qaeda only
once.
For Obama, this is the original sin whose consequences must now be
repaired. His foreign policy in the greater Middle East amounts to an
elaborate effort to peel back eight years of onion in hopes of finding
the war on terrorism's lost inner core: the struggle against al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda alone. That's the subtext underlying his new Afghan
strategy. He's raising troop levels, but less to vanquish the Taliban
than to gain the leverage to effectively negotiate with them — in
hopes of isolating alQaeda from its Afghan allies. He's boosting
America's means but narrowing its ends. The same logic underlies his
outreach to Iran and Syria and his rhetoric about groups like
Hizballah and Hamas. Obama's not trying to end the war on terrorism,
but he is trying to downsize it — so that it doesn't overwhelm the
U.S.'s capacities and crowd out his other priorities.
(See pictures of Afghanistan's dangerous Korengal Valley.)
Obama's foreign policy, in fact, looks a lot like Richard Nixon's in
the latter years of Vietnam, which sought to scale down another
foreign policy doctrine — containment — that had gotten out of hand.
And Nixon's experience offers both a warning and an example: pulling
back from your predecessor's overblown commitments can be vital. The
risk is that it can make you look weak or immoral, or both.
The End of Omnipotence
Obama's effort to downsize the war on terrorism is partly a function
of personality and mostly a function of circumstance. George W. Bush
loathed what he called "small ball." He saw both his father's
presidency and Bill Clinton's as inconsequential and yearned to invest
his own with world-historical significance. After 9/11, he immediately
began comparing the war on terrorism to World War II and the Cold War
— a global, generation-defining struggle against an enemy of vast
military and ideological power that would transform whole chunks of
the world.
Obama, by contrast, doesn't need to go hunting for grand challenges.
From preventing a depression to providing universal health care to
stopping global warming, he has them in spades. Bush could afford to
define the war on terrorism broadly because he didn't think anything
going on at home was nearly as important. Obama, on the other hand,
must find space (and money) for what he sees as equally grave domestic
threats. Bush loved the ominous, elastic noun terrorism. Obama,
according to an analysis by Politico, has publicly uttered the words
health and economy twice as often as terrorism, Iraq, Iran and
Afghanistan combined. Even his decision to temporarily send more
troops to Afghanistan was framed as a way to allow the U.S. to
eventually disengage from the war.
Obama is also shrinking the war on terrorism because, although he
won't say so out loud, he's scaled back Bush's assessment of American
power. When Bush invaded Iraq, the U.S. was coming off a decade of low-
cost military triumphs — from Panama in 1989 to the Gulf War in 1991
to Bosnia in 1995 to Kosovo in 1999. And back then, Afghanistan looked
like a triumph too. It was easy to believe that the U.S. military —
through a combination of force and threats of force — could prevail
over a slew of hostile regimes and movements at the same time. And it
was easy to believe that the U.S. could afford these military
adventures, particularly for conservatives like Dick Cheney, who
famously declared that "deficits don't matter." Finally, in the wake
of communism's collapse and the spread of democracy throughout the
developing world, hawks tended to see dictatorships as brittle, devoid
of popular support. This epic faith in the U.S.'s military, economic
and ideological power fueled Bush's decision to define the war on
terrorism as the U.S. against the field. It was like the way Americans
once talked about Olympic basketball: we were so much better than all
the others that they might as well combine into one opposing team so
we could take them all on at the same time.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1945182,00.html
Sid Harth
Afghanistan: Can Obama Sell America on This War?
By Joe Klein Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009
ENLARGE PHOTO+
President Obama speaks at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on
Dec. 1
Christopher Morris / VII for TIME
"If I did not think that the security of the United States and the
safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan," Barack
Obama said, announcing his decision to send 30,000 more troops to
Afghanistan, "I would gladly order every single one of our troops home
tomorrow." It was the most emotional moment of his address — but it
was a curious sentence, and an unsatisfying speech, defensive and
slightly convoluted. Certainly, it was not a classic call to arms:
nothing remotely like Shakespeare's Henry V at Agincourt or Winston
Churchill during the Blitz, as conservative columnist Charles
Krauthammer pointed out later.
The President made the best possible argument for a rather iffy
proposition: the expansion of a war that is 51% necessary and 49%
futile (or vice versa). But you can't argue a people into war,
especially one that seems so indistinct and perplexing. Once you have
made the decision to go, or to redouble your efforts, you must lead
the charge — passionately and, yes, with a touch of anger. Obama's
attempt to do that, his peroration about the ideals that cause us to
fight, was lovely but abstract: "It is easy to forget that when this
war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a
horrific attack ... I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot
summon that unity again." Absent the reference to Sept. 11, the
closing paragraphs could just as easily have climaxed a speech
announcing a campaign against global warming.
(See pictures of Obama speaking at West Point.)
Ronald Reagan would have done it differently. He would have told a
story. It might not have been a true story, but it would have had
resonance. He might have found, or created, a grieving spouse — a
young investment banker whose wife had died in the World Trade Center
— who enlisted immediately after the attacks ... and then gave his
life, heroically, defending a school for girls in Kandahar. Reagan
would have inspired tears, outrage, passion, a rush to recruiting
centers across the nation.
Of course, it is possible that purple prose in the service of
patriotic gore has become an anachronism in an era when it is possible
to witness the insane carnage caused by crudely constructed roadside
bombs each night on the evening news. There are those, especially in
the Democratic Party, who find such romanticism delusional and
obscene; it rankles particularly when applied to a questionable war.
But the romance of the fight, the band-of-brothers bond, the ethos of
ultimate sacrifice is at the heart of military culture. If a President
wants to send young people off to war, he must buy into that culture.
It is not enough to construct the best argument — or the best policy —
in a bad situation, as this President has done.
(See pictures of life in the Afghan National Army.)
And that is the high drama that has been unfolding this autumn: the
struggles of a highly intelligent, dispassionate man to find a
rationale for a mission that is crucial but slightly crazy, a decision
that will define his presidency.
(See a graphic of the troop count and war funding in Afghanistan.)
"I am painfully aware that this is politically unpopular," the
President said earlier that day over lunch with a group of columnists
in the White House library, an elegant little room in the basement of
the mansion. "It's least popular in my own party. But that's not how I
make decisions." There was little apparent anguish as the President
said that. He was calm, as always; a compelling presence, but
resolutely normal, as always. (The combination of charisma and lack of
pretense is his most attractive, if inexplicable, personal attribute.)
His defense of the policy he had constructed after months of
deliberation — a complex, slightly contradictory contraption of a
policy — was solid but not entirely convincing.
He dealt fluently with the toughest of questions: the push-me, pull-
you issue of sending in 30,000 more troops only to start withdrawing
them in July 2011, less than a year after they all arrive. The troops
— as many as were involved in the Iraq surge, though in a much smaller
war — are being sent to stun the enemy, to turn back recent Taliban
advances, especially in Kandahar province, the heartland of the
insurgency. But why limit the force of the blow by announcing the date
you will begin the withdrawal? "Why wouldn't they wait you out?" asked
David Ignatius of the Washington Post.
It was a question the President was expecting. He said he rejected
that argument "because if you follow the logic ... then you would
never leave. Right? Essentially you'd be signing on to have
Afghanistan as a protectorate of the United States indefinitely." And
the time limit, he suggested, might give him leverage over Hamid
Karzai, the recalcitrant Afghan leader: "In my discussion with
President Karzai yesterday," Obama said, "I was able to articulate to
him exactly what he's going to need to do over the next two years to
be prepared for this transition."
(See a video about the soldier's experience: Iraq vs. Afghanistan.)
I asked him what instructions he had given the military to make the
next 30,000 troops more effective than the 21,000 troops he sent last
March, whose presence didn't seem to improve the situation on the
ground at all. "Look, the fact that there were increased casualties
this year I think is to be expected from increased engagement by our
forces." True enough, but the NATO coalition lost ground to the
Taliban this year, by Obama's own admission. And the President could
only come up with speed of deployment and a clearer sense of mission
as strategic game changers. Later, when I asked him about what changes
he had ordered for the training of the Afghan army and police — a
frustrating proposition, so far — he deferred to his commanders in the
field but said the new order of battle would include "a partnering
situation, a one-to-one match between Afghan troops and U.S. troops"
in combat, which "produces much stronger results."
Then he stopped, abruptly. "None of this is easy," he said. "I mean,
we are choosing from a menu of options that is less than ideal."
Indeed, over the past few months, I've heard members of the
Administration make cases for and against each of the decisions the
President has made. There is no completely convincing argument that
30,000 — or 40,000 — more troops will turn the tide in Afghanistan;
you can make an argument, nearly as plausible, that they will make a
bad situation worse — Afghans have, historically, not reacted well to
tens of thousands of armed foreigners on their turf. (Which leads in
turn to a counter-counterargument: we're not conquerors; we come
bearing schools and wells, with the intention of leaving as soon as
possible.)
You can make the case that a timeline for transition to Afghan control
will have absolutely no leverage in getting Karzai to clean up his
act. After all, on the day of Obama's speech, close aides to the
Afghan President told the Wall Street Journal that Karzai opposes the
surge; why won't he just wait us out? (But there's a counter-counter
here as well: Isn't this just posturing? Doesn't Karzai know that
without American protection, he could be swinging from a lamppost in
Kabul like several of his predecessors?) And as for the argument, made
passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for
starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low
until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb,
former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand
down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to
create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and
security. The Taliban aren't stupid."
Discussions about tactics and strategy in Afghanistan do have a
tendency to go on, and on, swirling ad infinitum. One thing the
President has guaranteed by his deliberations of the past few months
is that he has sampled all the dishes on the menu of unappetizing
options. Every decision he has made can be meticulously defended. So
can every decision he didn't make.
But, you might reasonably ask, did the strategy review really have to
take so long and be so public? Obama had no choice about the public
part of the program; he is privately furious about the leaks,
especially those from the military. "We will deal with that situation
in time," an Obama adviser told me. The criticism of the President for
dithering is also unfair. This second Afghan strategy review in less
than a year was made necessary by an assortment of dramatic new
developments on the ground. Each had to be analyzed individually and
then correlated with the others. There was the fraudulent election,
which stripped the remaining clothes from the Emperor Karzai. There
was a big mistake made by the U.S. military, sending troops to remote
opium-laden Helmand province rather than to the heart of the
insurgency in Kandahar. There was the vastly improved human
intelligence collection on al-Qaeda, which has resulted in Predator
strikes that have killed at least a dozen top terrorist leaders in
recent months, according to the military. There was Pakistan's new
willingness to go after its indigenous branch of the Taliban, and the
continued unwillingness to go after the Afghan Taliban, led by Mullah
Omar — an organization created, and still supported, by the Pakistani
intelligence services.
Obama's leadership of this process was the source of some amazement by
those who participated in it. He was all business. Unlike Bill
Clinton, he didn't allow the conversations to ramble; unlike George W.
Bush, he ran the meetings himself. He asked sharp, Socratic questions
of everyone in the Situation Room. He would notice when an adviser
wasn't participating, even in an area that wasn't his or her
expertise, and ask, What do you think about this, Hillary? Or Bob, or
Jim. He encouraged argument among those who disagreed — most notably
General David Petraeus and Vice President Joe Biden. He was undaunted
by the military. Indeed, the greatest cause of delay was Obama's
constant pressure on his commanders to justify every unit and find
some way to speed the troops' arrival. The final deployment includes
only three combat brigades and one training brigade — about 20,000
troops — augmented by 10,000 enablers: medics, mechanics, intelligence
analysts, strategic-communications (that is, propaganda) experts.
The real haggle was over speed of deployment. The military plans
carefully, in five- to 10-year increments, and moves with the speed of
a supertanker. A good part of the reason the troops were sent to
Helmand instead of Kandahar, even though it violated the prevailing
counterinsurgency strategy, was that the fortifications already had
been built in Helmand; it seemed too late to turn the supertanker
around. Obama kept sending plans back to the Pentagon, seeking a
faster launch for his "extended surge." The military still isn't
entirely sure that it'll be able to move 30,000 troops to Afghanistan
by August. "We'll push in every way possible to get the forces on the
ground ASAP," a senior military official told me. But the President
clearly believes that the speed and vehemence of the new offensive
will be its greatest assets.
At lunch and later in the speech, the President seemed most engaged
when he addressed the public's mixed feelings about the war. "The
American people are having a really tough time right now in their own
lives," he told us, in closing, at lunch. Then he diluted the power of
the speech by detouring into a recitation of his concerns about the
recession, even linking them to the time limit he has placed on the
war: "That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-
ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is
our own."
(See photos of the battle in Afghanistan's Kunar province.)
This is a dangerous mixing of apples and Predators, and it is a
reflection of political calculation: the President knows his numbers
are sagging because of the oxymoronic perception that he is spending
too much and doing too little to ease the economic crisis. It is a
real problem he faces — and, to some extent, has brought upon himself
by focusing so much attention on health care reform — but its proper
place is in another speech. Given the feeling of abandonment that many
of the soldiers I've spoken with during the past few years have, a
more appropriate message to the American people might have been: I
know you're hurting, but we're at war. We're trying to stabilize the
most dangerous part of the world. We're trying to prevent the collapse
of a nuclear state, Pakistan. We're trying to capture and kill the
people who massacred our friends and neighbors on Sept. 11, people who
represent the purest manifestation of evil in the world. You have to
be part of this effort, and no, merely mouthing platitudes in support
of the troops is not enough. We all need to sacrifice.
He might have asked the public to pay a tax to support the war, as
Congressman David Obey has suggested. Or he might have listed some
charities that people could contribute to — Greg Mortenson's brilliant
effort to build schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan comes to mind — or
he might have asked Americans to send clothing, or seeds, to the
second poorest country in the world. This is a message, a resolute and
passionate evocation of national purpose, that the Taliban need to
hear as well.
The bracing sense of unity that Obama cited in his peroration was
achieved reflexively — it was the obvious human reaction after the
Sept. 11 attacks. But such unity is difficult to sustain. And it
cannot be reignited by mere words or argument, even when the argument
and the policy is, I believe, the correct one. The exquisite
rationality that attends almost everything this President does is
essential, but not enough, when sending young men and women into
battle. There needs to be inspiration as well. There is no such thing
as a no-drama war.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1945232,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Even as Obama increases troop levels, he is scaling back American
foreign policy.
Bryan Denton / Corbis
A U.S. soldier patrols in Afghanistan's Zabul province in November
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 5, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Dec 14, 2009
If you take just one sentence out, Barack Obama's speech on
Afghanistan last week was all about focusing and limiting the scope of
America's mission in that country. His goal, he said, was "narrowly
defined." The objectives he detailed were exclusively military—to deny
Al Qaeda a safe haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum, and strengthen
the Kabul government's security forces. He said almost nothing about
broader goals like spreading democracy, protecting human rights, or
assisting in women's education. The nation that he was interested in
building, he explained, was America.
And then there was that one line: "I have determined that it is in our
vital national interest to send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan."
Here lies the tension in Barack Obama's policy. He wants a clearer,
more discriminating foreign policy, one that pares down the vast
commitments and open-ended interventions of the Bush era, perhaps one
that is more disciplined even than Bill Clinton's approach to the
world. (On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly invoked George H.W.
Bush as the president whose foreign policy he admired most.) But
America is in the midst of a war that is not going well, and scaling
back now would look like cutting and running. Obama is searching for a
post-imperial policy in the midst of an imperial crisis. The qualified
surge—send in troops to regain the momentum but then draw down—is his
answer to this dilemma. This is an understandable compromise, and it
could well work, but it pushes off a final decision about Afghanistan
until the troop surge can improve the situation on the ground.
Eighteen months from now, Obama will have to answer the core question:
is a stable and well-functioning Afghanistan worth a large and
continuing American ground presence, or can American interests be
secured at much lower cost?
This first year of his presidency has been a window into Barack
Obama's world view. Most presidents, once they get hold of the bully
pulpit, cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They
gravitate to grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny, and embrace the
moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Even the elder
Bush, a pragmatist if there ever was one, lapsed into dreamy language
about "a new world order" once he stood in front of the United
Nations. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing
with Russia, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. A great orator, he has, in
this arena, kept his eloquence in check. Obama is a realist, by
temperament, learning, and instinct. More than any president since
Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests
carefully, providing the resources to achieve them, and keeping his
eyes on the prize.
In 1943 the columnist Walter Lippmann defined foreign policy as
"bringing into balance, with a comfortable surplus of power in
reserve, the nation's commitments and the nation's power." Only then
could the United States achieve strategic stability abroad and
domestic support at home. Consciously or not, President Obama was
channeling Lippmann when he said, "As president I refuse to set goals
that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests." In
his speech he quoted only one person, a president of the opposite
party, Dwight Eisenhower, who said of national-security challenges,
"Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader
consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national
programs." Obama added that "over the past several years, we have lost
that balance." He is hoping to restore some equilibrium to American
foreign policy.
"In the end," said the president last week, "our security and
leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms." He
explained that America's economic and technological vigor underpinned
its ability to play a world role. At a small lunch with a group of
columnists (myself included) last week, he made clear that he did not
want to run two wars. He seemed to be implying that these struggles—
Iraq and Afghanistan—were not the crucial path to America's long-term
security. He explained that challenges at home—economic growth,
technological innovation, education reform—were at the heart of
maintaining America's status as a superpower.
It is now clear that Obama is attempting something quite ambitious—to
reorient American foreign policy to-ward something less extravagant
and adversarial. That begins with narrowing the war on terror; scaling
back the conflict with the Islamic world to those groups and countries
that pose serious, direct threats to America; and reaching out to the
rest. He has also tried to develop a better working relationship
between America and other major powers like Russia and China, setting
aside smaller issues in hopes of cooperating on bigger ones. This
means departing from a bipartisan approach in which Washington's role
was to direct the rest of the world, pushing regimes large and small
to accept American ideas, and publicly chastising them when they
refused. Obama is trying to break the dynamic that says that when an
American president negotiates with the Chinese or Russians, he must
return with rewards or concessions—or else he is guilty of
appeasement.
And then there is that line. It might seem hard to reconcile a more
targeted and focused foreign policy with the expansion of a war and
the introduction of 30,000 troops. But it is not unprecedented. When
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger entered the White House in 1969,
they inherited a war in Vietnam that they might have believed in at
some theoretical level, but that they recognized was bleeding the
country. Over their years in office, they focused on shoring up
America's power position through diplomacy with the Soviet Union,
China, Egypt, and Israel. But they also recognized that they had to
deal with the crisis in Vietnam and said explicitly that they were
going to try to scale back America's involvement there. In this they
succeeded. By April 1969, soon after Nixon took office, there were
543,000 American troops in Vietnam. At the end of his first term,
there were fewer than 20,000 left. But in between, in order to keep
the enemy on the defensive, to gain momentum, and to create space for
American troops to leave, Nixon and Kissinger ordered a series of
offensive military maneuvers that were designed to hit the North
Vietnamese hard. Surge and then draw down, you might say.
Although the Viet Cong were beaten back temporarily, ultimately the
North took over the South in 1975. But it is instructive to think
about why. First, our local ally lacked legitimacy and competence. The
government of South Vietnam was simply unable to gain the confidence
of its people, and the Viet Cong and its Northern allies were able to
persuade or intimidate tens of thousands of Vietnamese to shift to
their side. Second, the enemy had safe havens outside South Vietnam—
mainly in North Vietnam and Cambodia—which provided them escape routes
and supply chains. More significant, the insurgents had the active
support of the other superpower, the Soviet Union, as well as some aid
from China. Finally, the United States cut off all assistance to South
Vietnam, abandoning a country it had lost 59,000 troops defending.
The picture today is more promising on all three fronts. In
Afghanistan, for all its problems, the Karzai government has been
elected and does have the support of significant sections of the
population. More important, the Taliban is deeply unpopular almost
everywhere. As for safe havens, it's true that the problem of Pakistan
is perhaps the central challenge in defeating the Taliban and Al
Qaeda, both of whose leaderships are now based there and not in
Afghanistan. But the United States has been getting better at
attacking these safe havens using drones, while Pakistan's military is
beginning, slowly and reluctantly, to accept that some action will
have to be taken against militant groups that it has long supported.
Perhaps because this war is seen as one of necessity and not choice by
most of the American public, there is much greater support for such
policies than there was for the very similar efforts to attack the Ho
Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia.
SUBSCRIBE sp_inline_article_subscriptionClick Here to subscribe to
NEWSWEEK and save up to 88% »
As for the broader problem of great-power support, the Taliban and Al
Qaeda are largely isolated, with a massive international coalition
arrayed against them. That does not mean that they cannot prevail in a
local struggle over some parts of Afghanistan, but they will be hard
pressed to achieve their ultimate goal of ruling Afghanistan. It might
be difficult for the United States to "win" in Afghanistan, but it
will be impossible for the Taliban to do so. And finally, America has
not abandoned Iraq and will not abandon Afghanistan.
Ultimately, however, one hopes that President Obama will keep another
lesson of Vietnam firmly in mind. Withdrawing from a messy situation
did not permanently damage America's national security. The United
States suffered the most humiliating exit imaginable from South
Vietnam in 1975, followed by reversals in Africa, Central America, and
Iran. Yet within a decade, America had regained a commanding position
internationally, and within 15 years its principal adversary, the
Soviet Union, had collapsed. The key element in this resurgence was
nothing that happened abroad—it was America's ability to revive its
economic strength at home, the engine of its superpower status.
The history of great powers suggests that maintaining their position
requires, most crucially, tending to the sources of their power:
economic growth and technological innovation. It also means
concentrating on the centers of global power, not the periphery.
Throughout history great nations have lost their way by getting bogged
down in imperial missions far from home that crippled their will,
strength, and focus. (Even when they won: Britain prevailed in the
Boer War, but it broke the back of the empire.) It's important to
remember that in the coming century it will be America's dominant
position in Asia—its role as the balancer in the Pacific—that will be
pivotal to its role as a global superpower, not whatever happens in
the mountains of Afghanistan.
Obama will need to maintain his focus come July 2011. Let me make a
bold prediction. Afghanistan will not be transformed by that date. It
will not look like France, with a strong and effective central
government. The gains that will have been made will be fragile. The
situation will still be somewhat unstable. But that should still be
the moment to begin the transition to Afghan rule. By the end of 2011,
the United States will have spent 10 years, thousands of lives, and $2
trillion trying to create stable, democratic governments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, two of the most difficult, divided countries in the
world. It will be time to move on.
Obama's realism is sure to be caricatured as bloodless and indifferent
to human rights, democracy, and other virtues. In fact, Obama probably
understands the immense moral value of an engaged and effective
superpower. As he said in his speech, "More than any other nation, the
United States of America has underwritten global security for over six
decades—a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down,
markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific
progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty."
Stability, peace, prosperity, and liberty have all progressed in
tandem over the past six decades. That is no accident. As Obama said,
"We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple
continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from
rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to
develop an architecture of institutions—from the United Nations to
NATO to the World Bank—that provide for the common security and
prosperity of human beings." Obama is said to admire the great
theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. This approach—engaged in the world with a
positive vision but cautious about overreaching—is Niebuhr in action.
This has always been the higher morality of American realism in
foreign policy, as practiced by Franklin Roosevelt or Dean Acheson. By
staying focused on the large objectives of peace and stability, by
maintaining our vision of an open, free world, we help sustain
positive trends in the world that are broad and deep and lasting. In
other words, our role as a strong and successful superpower is to make
it possible for good things to happen—not just for Afghan schoolgirls,
but for millions around the world.
© 2009
Discuss
Posted By: audiq7 @ 12/07/2009 9:32:58 PM
Zakaria is a real chameleon dude. Just 2 months back he was singing a
different tune and Taliban had "100% support".
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215318
"the central challenge in defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both of
whose leaderships are now based there and not in Afghanistan"
"More important, the Taliban is deeply unpopular almost everywhere."
"the Taliban and Al Qaeda are largely isolated"
Disgraceful how everybody's opinions get isolated and discarded as the
political situation 'evolves'. Poor amnesiac americans.
Posted By: S.T.H.W.S.O.A.G. @ 12/07/2009 9:31:31 PM
Anytime I think of the Pres. B Hussien Obama, it is very clear he is a
socialist and that scares me. I am reminded of a quote from a great
speaker in our nation's history. Mr Ben Franklin said "They who can
give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety." The socialist want to take away liberties
from everyone then depense those liberties as they see fit, in this
case health care. They want to make everyone dependent on the
government for health issues. Are you ready to give up the liberty you
have to decide your own health care to the government for security in
that matter? I'm not. How many other liberties are you willing to give
to the government for your secuity in whatever area the liberty is in?
Mr Thomas Jefferson, later the 2d President, penned it so well in the
Declaration of Independence that we have the right to "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness." He did not say everyone would prosper
the same in the persuit. I work hard to provide for my family now and
in the future. I have had some success and some failure. Some people
have had greater success than me and other have not. Be that as it
may, I am NOT happy at the prospect of having my liberty, my family's
future, taken away to pay for/be given to others so they may have what
I worked for. Socialism breeds laziness and KILLS THE AMERICAN
SPIRIT!!
Some other thoughts that people need to be reminded of.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and
you feed him for a lifetime. (Chinese Proverb)
"If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10 - THE BIBLE)
Posted By: Chapalody @ 12/07/2009 6:42:50 PM
Before we transform President Obama into something he truly isn't.
Let's set the record straight what President Obama meant by nation
building. President Obama is a man on a mission. His only purpose is
to change this country into a socialist one. The first spoon of
socialism is his government health care. The second spoon of socialism
will go down smoother after the people have tasted the first. After
the first and second spoons of socialism, President Obama will be
force feeding the American people more then they care to swallow.
President Obama is not a realist, he's a socialist. His wiring can't
be confused with being a realist or anything else. He's a pure breed
socialist. President Obama has been indoctrinated by the far left to
be nothing but a socialist. The damage is too great and is
irreversible. There's only one thing on President Obama's mind. His
government health care. Everything else is a side issue. President
Obama even said himself jobs is a side issue. There are other side
issues on the list that keeps growing. As of now the list consists of
jobs, the economy, the deficit, our troops, and now the war. The
picture you painted of President Obama is one an artist paints of an
image of something they want to be true. Your image of President Obama
is false. The President Obama your thinking of was left on the
campaign trail along with the real hope and change promises. President
Obama dithered so long because he was weighing if he could get
something out of sending troops to Afghanistan. He did get something.
After he made the announcement to send troops, the Democrats announced
they were going to propose a tax for the war. To President Obama, this
war is nothing more then politics and he's going to get the money he
needs for his government health care and climate change out of the
American people off their patriotism and as payback for interfering
with his far left programs and delaying his socialist change for this
country.
Posted By: acrees55 @ 12/07/2009 4:11:40 PM
Always funny to check out the blogs of the indoctrinated. Must be nice
to have ole GW to blame everything on. But OUR GUY, he's the BEST!!
Too funny.
Posted By: afaith @ 12/07/2009 12:54:16 PM
Reply Report Abuse i'm sure glad you leftwing bleeding hearts wern't
around in the 20th century when the germans wanted to rule the
universe........we'd probably all be speaking german right now had you
guys been in control.........go back to your ballet lessons and let
the stone wall jacksons of america take care of the difficult and
maybe even dangerous buisness of a free country....
By: hlgns763 @ 12/07/2009 4:08:14 PM
ohhhhh boy...
WWII was EVERYONES war, there were liberals fighting alongside
republicans, blacks fighting along side whites, and most of the free
countries from all over the world descended upon germany and the axis
of evil right alongside americans, and "bleeding heart liberals".
there is not a thing wrong with compassion, and if you think there is,
than you have some issues. im sure according to your narrow views i am
a bleeding heart liberal, which in and of itself is a sweeping
assumption and a broad label to put on someone. one can be a "bleeding
heart" and still handle the dirty work of war. the differences between
WWII and every war that followed are stark.
Posted By: JRichter @ 12/07/2009 2:13:54 PM
Who was President during most of the second world war? Tick. Tock.
Tick. Tock. Or during the Bosnia-Serbian conflict? Who will now be
responsible for actually defeating those who really did harm to
Americans in Afganistan? Speak softly, carry a big stick. Reach out to
everyday muslims and blast the extremists amongst them that threaten
and kill everyone including muslims. Keep up people. And Buy American
even if it costs you a bit more it will come back to you - our
presidents can not tell us this or crack down for us because then
other countries will crack down on our own exports too. One more thing
- stop whining so much and hate fellow countrymen even less.
Posted By: MichaelX @ 12/07/2009 2:30:59 PM
A president of the United States of America should be setting his
sights on what's good for us, here.
We do not have a president of the United States of America. We have an
Oboyama, and his evil cohorts. Who profits from this "must" war that
does not really affect us one bit. Democrats who won the contracts for
all the defence weaponry?
Foreighn investors that the Dems so like to deal with? Are these
profits staying here, helping our economy?
I think not, and the hoodwink is not going to stop there. Yeah, we
have to defend, and help others defend, but at what point do we let
them do the defending, and lose their own lives? Todays situations
have nothing in common with past aggressions, and our response. All
this caring about filthy muslims who just want us to go away has
gotten out of hand. We do not need any of their troubles, or news
constantly being thrown at us. There is the rest of the world, ya
know.
Posted By: ama2002 @ 12/07/2009 1:39:42 PM
Dear Fareed:
I am distressed that you are giving Obama credit for scaling back
America's Foreign Policy, when he gave MacCrystal exactly what he
wanted. Obama accepts the Nobel Peace Prize, but doesn't have the
nerve to change this open ended disaster in Afghanistan? I hope you're
right that he has changed the direction of our Foreign Policy, but I
just don't see it.
I see an EQUIVOCATOR....
Posted By: chokkan7 @ 12/07/2009 12:26:26 PM
I admire President Obama on so many levels, but it's difficult to
swallow many of the stated reasons for the proposed surge. Like
throwing good money after bad, it seems that public sentiment in this
country needs to reach a critical mass before our leaders gain the
support needed to make sensible decisions. I don't advocate
isolationism, but I can't help but feel that we'd be better off
investing in our own people and infrastructure than in expending our
treasure and the lives of young soldiers to achieve a goal that is so
ephemeral that no politician can even hope to accurately describe it.
Posted By: rmwilliams68 @ 12/07/2009 12:10:22 PM
Thank you, Mr. President, for realigning sensibility to our American
foreign policy articulation. President Obama's message is the perfect
one for the world in which we live today. Might does not always make
right, but examination of the world as a whole and redefining our
place and role in it is the correct approach. We are yet the leaders
of the free world, but we must be careful in how we act in order to
preserve this freedom and maintain our leadership position. We must
proceed with a balanced approach, not a one-sided, wild-eye, guns
blazing march into the pit of oblivion.
Abuse Posted By: wilsan @ 12/06/2009 9:17:04 PM
Let's face it: Obama is scaling back America, period.
Obviously, this is what "team" Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Soros want to see
in America... a country that is no longer respected, much less feared.
A country that is open to attack. A country whose economy is
subsistence level living.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, George Soros... all hate America and want to see
a scaled-back.
Posted By: Dragoon21b @ 12/07/2009 11:40:05 AM
What is this chronic compulsion and fetishistic fascination that the
people on the right wing of American Political spectrum seem to have
about how we need to be "Feared"...the "Let them hate so long as they
fear" idea of foreign policy might be a good idea if we had elected
Julius Cesar to the Presidency...this is the 21st Century not the
19th...
Posted By: JRichter @ 12/07/2009 10:20:35 AM
Right, right. That is why he has increased attack on those who
actually killed Americans in Afganistan and in Pakistan through drones
and the CIA. Right. Our worldview is either clouded by the news
organization we watch or by our pre-disposition such that truth
becomes lie and lie becomes the truth. Yes he hates America indeed or
you hate America or you are blinded by your hatred.
Posted By: kenfromillinois @ 12/06/2009 4:36:40 PM
We in Illinois are familiar with the corrupt Chicago Democrat who
always voted present. He has no vision. He is just a teleprompter
reader who may destroy the American economy in 1 year!
Posted By: JRichter @ 12/07/2009 10:56:36 AM
Keep on recounting the same nonsense year after year even in the
presence of opposite evidence. This guy has gone on more open press
conferences - local and international - within the same time frame
than any prior president and that's not count town halls (where he
takes on all questions including zany ones on legalizing
prostitution), and even open formats like Leno and Fox's OReilly (yes
Oct last year - two sessions of interviews) and Fox's Wallace, and
three debates in which he spanked McCain or held his own (depending on
your bias). And those dont allow a prompter. In fact maybe he needs to
go on Couric to shed the teleprompter label for you. The guy is just
very conservative in approach and would prefer to put his thoughts
down in quiet if he doesnt have to go on the fly. Why wing it when we
are in a digital age - to prove what? That you are old school? Or a
scoffer at technology - the blackberry and the prompter? Or that
somehow if you speak on the fly more often you'll be a btter president
- that this is a relevant issue?
As for voting present: 105 votes to send a bill back for improvement
out of 2000+ actual votes in 11 years. And no higher a percentage than
other lawmwkers. Lets just rephrase that to voting present all the
time or maybe a little lie - most of the time. Folks just keep
repeating a useless story just because it feels good and agrees with
their preferred narrative. Darn the Koolaid drinker came to ruin the
feel good bash and hate party with facts. If the country could only
get worse so you could be proven right and the country could return to
what you like - less progressive and even less wealthy as Bush left it
(based on our collective equity the country is now more wealthy than
on Jan 2009) but with the right social construct? This hatred is
really all self love and love of own position and view of society
masking as love of country.
Posted By: lisarae38 @ 12/06/2009 6:29:49 PM
The economy was destroyed, loooong before he took his oath idiot!
Posted By: abdullahkhan5 @ 12/06/2009 4:47:24 PM
and the one before him carries no blame for all the mess that is
created...2 wars...recession...battered American position and prestige
in the world
Posted By: OIFVet06 @ 12/06/2009 9:06:58 PM
He was Obama the anti-war activist who joined Harry Reid and the other
hand wringers on the left side of the isle back in 2006 and screamed,
"The war in Iraq is lost!" Well the war in Iraq was won thanks to the
Bush Administration's ability to "finally" learn how to shift on the
fly. Now, let's hope Obama can learn how to drive a manual stick with
the war in Afghanistan.
Posted By: JRichter @ 12/07/2009 10:23:55 AM
All hail the great Bush that did wonders for us.
Invaded the wrong country and got a surge right.
After nearly a trillion and thousands of lives
Created much jobs and strengthened the economy
Let's return back to Bush country.
Posted By: JRichter @ 12/07/2009 10:14:30 AM
Oh some will not be able to read this article. Its just going to be an
opportunity to whine, complain, and hate some more. The central
argument is so true - American power as well as usefulness to the
world derives from America being strong. We can not help anyone
whetehr Iraq, Afganistan, Israel, Pakistan, or even ourselves when we
are weak economically. Temporary military setbacks can not ruin us
much as ruining our own economy. In that Obama is right to be
withrdrawing from Iraq as quickly from Iraq and from Afganistan
starting from 2011. The important thing is that he does the latter and
judging from his promise in Iraq (and also of a surge in AFganistan)
he tends to follow his script give or take a few months.
Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 12/06/2009 1:55:22 PM
It is so sad that to get threw to Americans you got to talk to them
like a game show host; The excited, urgent edge and ruin-on
snretences....Like:
THAT's right! ladys' and gentlemen! This Global Warming scam has been
brought to you by the good people of ACORN! The SEIU and Obama The
Hawk! And a sound track comes up of muttered "ewhhh " and "Hmm mmm
mmm" with maybe a little soft applaus.
But to just tell and American we're being scammed by the health care,
global climate politics and junk science, and a farce BAIL OUT of OUR
MONEY to Obama friends and they don't get it.. It's too harsh, because
it's too adult.
Now how do we use the easy, soft, convinceing approach to this
question...
How come all of Obama The Hawks personal biogfraphy and records are
locked up and sealed from the American people?
Posted By: ArthurD @ 12/06/2009 2:51:51 PM
You listen to FOX right.
Posted By: Scuba Steve @ 12/07/2009 8:14:31 AM
.....But he didn't listen to his English Teacher...lol...
Posted By: TheEnforcer @ 12/07/2009 7:28:11 AM'
Stop complaining fools.
You believed what all these Obama Kool-aid drinkers were writing (99%
good things while ignoring Ayers, Reverend Wright, etc)) in the MSM
and you fell for it by voting for this "EMPTY SUIT".
Now, like mother used to say, "take your medicine and stop
complaining" for the next 3 years.
Posted By: sunny dan @ 12/07/2009 7:16:24 AM
I was very disappointed by the Obama "Surge" speech. It lacked
imagination, to say the least. I realize he is being contained by the
right wings hawks in your county, and I know he is looking for some
room to manoeuvre towards an exit. This speech might gain him some
room, but I don't think it's going to find him the exit.
To make any progress in Afghanistan, America has to get out of Iraq.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are conflicts that suffer for lack of
legitimacy. A continued thread of American foreign policy is to wrap
naked self-interest in diaphanous democratic ideals. It's a kind of
diplomatic pornography that has appeal in the States, but it looks
disgusting from any other point of view. It's a policy that ultimately
supports only the most corrupt governments.
What gives relatively small groups like Al Qaeda, and the Taliban
their resolve to oppose the superior forces of the United States is
the certainty that American policy is just plain wrong. They luxuriate
in the belief that, 'right will prevail'. I'm not saying that those
that oppose American policy are right. In fact, they are just as
wrong. But they don't have to question their motives or actions. They
don't have to suffer from introspection. They just have to believe
that opposing an illegitimate exercise of American superpower is
justification enough.
I really liked Mr. Zakaria's report. It represents a welcomed,
thoughtful examination of American involvement in Afghanistan. I like
that he speaks in favour of Obama's view on foreign policy. But, let's
face it, to say that Obama's view is better then the Bush/Cheney view
isn't saying very much at all. America has a long way to go before it
can pull itself out of that hole created by the last administration.
Ultimately, America must accept the force of a greater truth, "right
will prevail."
Posted By: jmbreland @ 12/07/2009 6:55:32 AM
Obama, a "realist??" Now that's a frightening thought. Do you mean to
say that this man has cooly, rationally and pragmatically set about to
destroy the American economy, vicerate the private sector, and
decimate American prestige in the arena of world affairs? That all of
this was done on purpose and not as the misguided lunging of a naive
ideologue? That, my friend, is a serious and sobering charge.
Posted By: drywaller4u @ 12/07/2009 6:19:30 AM
THE CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERTARIANS ARE DOING THE BUFFOON MARCH ON
WASHINGTON D.C.
The 'Buffoons' are on the March ! ! ! If they could just realize which
foot is right and which foot is left, the 'march' would be prettier.
The 'Buffoons' are on the March! ! ! If they could agree what they are
marching for, the marching would be prettier.
The 'Buffoons' are on the March ! ! ! If they could only realize who
is profiting from their work, their marching would stop! ! !
Posted By: drywaller4u @ 12/07/2009 6:17:39 AM
When bushie and his buffoon conservatives took office the DOW was
11,250. When he left office the DOW was 7365 and in a tail spin.
When bushie and his buffoon conservatives took office unemployment was
4.7%. When he left office it was 8.5% and in RAPID RISE.
When bushie and his buffoon conservatives took office the dollar was
1:1 with the Euro. When the moron left office the Euro bought $1.32
and was heading for $1.50.
When bushie and his conservative buffoons took office gas was $1.25
pr. Gal.
When the idiot left office $2.50 pr. Gallon.
When bushie took office inflations was just above 3% and it went to
%5.6 when the recession hit.
It took eight very long years for the moron and his buffoons to
destroy this nation, and those same buffoons are wanting the helm and
their playhouse back. UNBELIEVABLE ! ! !
Posted By: drywaller4u @ 12/07/2009 6:10:22 AM
Fight the deceptive and negative rhetoric America. The health care
reform bill is what America needs, the anti-everything groups are not
being accurate in their bleating. If we leave things as they are with
our health care, we will end up paying so much more because of the
health insurance company executives can cherry pick who they insure
and raise the premiums to all others, so no one can afford their
premiums. Employers are dropping their policies on employees one right
after another already. If your employer can't afford premiums now,
imagine what it will be like in a year. The conservatives and
libertarians are bleating their same old anti-government speeches and
we watch our protections from immoral big business rape us and gamble
with our lives. This administration is desperate, because it sees what
will happen to the American public if our fate is left up to a group
of executives that could care less about our life's than their huge
profits. If the health insurance companies and PHARMA can spend one
million dollars a day to stop this legislation, can you imagine the
huge profits that they are trying to protect.
Posted By: drywaller4u @ 12/07/2009 6:08:25 AM
When a Nation is ruled by big money and their lobbyists, there will be
a negative ending to all that this Great Nation holds dear. When it is
a battle between reason , logic and profits,profits, I am afraid
profits will win. The disaster of eight years of moronic policies had
brought this nation to it's knees. Now that things are just starting
to turn around and we are seeing good things starting to happen, there
are still those saying 'what took so long?' Eight years of
tremendously stupid government and which moron says it should have
been fixed faster.
The President is bashed at every opportunity; the democrats are bashed
at every opportunity. It is like a group of scavengers on a perverted
mission. I remember only eight years ago, that we were almost in a
total collapse of our finances. I am bright enough to understand the
scope of those idiot inspired policies that that almost ruined our
nation. There has been a horrendous amount of problems handed to this
congress and administration, so I am not enough of a moron to expect
them to be fixed in less than a year. I hear that Americans are
starting to blame the current administration for our problems, which
is a direct correlation of mis-information and propaganda issued by
the health insurance industry and the .org groups paid for and
supported by -health insurance companies, petroleum industry, PHARMA,
far right entities and moguls-. The willingness of the moderates,
liberals, centrists, humanitarians, gays, women (with the capabilities
of independent thinking) and minorities to fight for this current
administration and congress is great and determined. We will never
abandon our tremendous and extremely important views on the issues of
today. We will fight with all the tenacity that it takes to win these
battles. We understand the brawl mentality that we are up against and
will not waiver an inch in this battle. The mandate of '08 is stronger
now than ever before, we, without question, understand the importance
of the off-year elections. This battle is between big business and the
American people not, between the American people and government.
Posted By: Getbacktorealreporting @ 12/07/2009 5:35:15 AM
Thou there are many counter points to this article(if that's what you
want to call it) there is one elephant in the room that can't be
ignored....... Newsweek has lost it's way. Until they pull there heads
out of Obama's butt, stop campaigning for him, and portraying your
political spew as investigative reporting; Newsweek will never be
taken seriously. You were ONCE a reliable and informative magazine.
Posted By: underdog @ 12/06/2009 11:05:12 PM
trucker1 you need to get out of the cab more often . Either that or
you need to fix the exhaust leak. The fumes are leaking back into the
cab.
Obama and Biden are trying to unseat the Bush Cheny tag team for the
title of Masters that are a Disaster. They may not come in first place
but they will at least get honorable mention for second place.
Posted By: trucker1 @ 12/06/2009 10:28:41 PM
After the Bush/Cheney disaster even the Daffy Duck administration
would be a welcome change.
Finally the grown-ups are back in charge.
Obama is doing great and this nation is headed toward better times.
Forget the nay-sayer idiots. Right-wing conservatives have nothing
to contribute to this discussion.
Posted By: Herakleos @ 12/06/2009 9:44:53 PM
Fareed is such an anti-American propagandist.
Clinton had a disciplined foreign policy? Ask the Serbs he bombed.
Unilaterally, I might add. And he poised to invade Iraq early in 1998.
I know because I was one of the Rapid Deployment Force soldiers
preparing for this fight. And he launched a massive bombing of it late
in 1998.
First Amanpour, now Zakaria. I think CNN should rename itself "al
Jazeera West"
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/06/2009 10:25:06 PM
I wish we could get "al-Jazeera West" out here. They have more
integrity than EITHER Fox News or MSNBC.
Do you even speak a word of Arabic? I do, I studied it for a year at
Stanford after 9/11 happened - though I'd even signed up for it
before, realizing how important that region of the world is to what's
going on.
For this, I feel I can regularly get counted on to be called a traitor
by neoconservative frothing bigoted "patriots" who despise anything
that starts with the letters "Al-".
But, of course, I'm sure there was some dude back in World War II
studying German to try to help understand what the hell was going on
back then, and a bunch of similar frothing patriots accusing him of
cowardice and stinking, filthy *** Nazi sympathies for learning from
books instead of bombs in an effort to gain the knowledge to help
bring this conflict to a conclusion faster, too.
My fellow Americans, I love my country and its principles more than
anything else in the world almost, but I still have to say, eight
years after we got attacked - some of you are still huge idiots on the
Middle East, and probably always will be.
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/06/2009 10:28:16 PM
Just for reference, the word that got banned there happened to share
five of its letters in common with the word "sauerkraut"...
Posted By: underdog @ 12/06/2009 10:25:06 PM
Herakleos, didn't you like being told to be ready to deploy every time
around Christmas? I lived outside of Ft. Benning. My neighbors were
always packing up around Christmas while CLINTON was in office. The
Dems seem to forget that. Clinton threatened war on Sadam twice. He
said Sadam had WMD's and started preperations for a ground assault ,
twice.
Posted By: Wsstatesecret @ 12/06/2009 10:21:56 PM
Only on the surface. His strong assumptions make an organic flavor of
marshal law, held together by absolute deniability tethered to grave
consequences (standardized and off the shelf via our bull *** space
program) very easy to pull off. It is a neat and extraordinary
evolution of our Constitution and democracy that many dictators wish
they could have pulled off the shelf because our history books would
have been very different. Can't wait to see how the 50 year
intelligence war in Iraq shapes out and shapes us.
Posted By: techresmgt @ 12/06/2009 9:47:29 PM
Karzai stated today that America needs to be 'patient'. What has this
dud been doing since 2001 besides taking our money and buying funny
looking hats? Patient indeed. On the bike, Karzai, get on the bike. I
am sick and tired of politicians advising hard working, tax paying
citizens they must be patient as pursue their hidden agendas.
Posted By: donaldrex @ 12/06/2009 9:35:44 PM
Yes Fareed, Obama has resisted the temptation to become Winston
Churchill. It would seem that he wants to emulate Neville Chamberlain
instead. "Peace in our time" indeed!
Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 12/06/2009 7:04:35 PM
He's Obama The Hawk! With his approval on schedule to be about 35% by
2010. Yes- THAT Obama The Hawk, covering how our economy was Frank N
Schumered!
Obama The Hawk and his health care reform Medicine Show, and going to
Copenhagen where the globalists are adamant that there be NO CHRISTMAS
DISPLAYS in a Scandinavian country.
Danes! remember ithat the Nazi's occupied your land? Are you going to
take this crap from Globalists united in climate data that is
fraudulent?
Hey Danes! The Nazi's are back and this time they don't have thier
tanks along! On your feet or on your knees! Show the globalists your
Christmas Trees!
If they cant handle that, then obviously they are not tough enough to
be telling people what to do in thier own country! These invaders are
not Vikings! Obama The Hawk is becoming YES WE CAN'T, now.
Don't worry about it.
Posted By: expatincebu @ 12/06/2009 5:17:48 PM
The US military is a giant leech sucking the life blood out of
America.
Posted By: abdullahkhan5 @ 12/06/2009 4:44:45 PM
"It might be difficult for the United States to "win" in Afghanistan,
but it will be impossible for the Taliban to do so."
-Gen.Stanley McChrystal admitted Taliban is winning and they control
70% of the country side. If use doesn't win that automatically means
Taliban won, they don't have to conquer anything but just maintain
status quo.
And this war was never about human rights, democracy or any other high
moral ideals.
Posted By: KristenAnnWinslet @ 12/06/2009 2:25:01 PM
America has lost it's power because it has become too greedy . . . It
has lost it's sense of purpose only to focus on wealth instead of
making a real difference in the world. The current economic crisis is
evidence of that.
Posted By: garcilaso @ 12/06/2009 4:44:08 PM
Noooooo! America lost its power because Bush f@#$%% it up! That's the
real truth.
By: abdullahkhan5 @ 12/06/2009 4:43:57 PM
"It might be difficult for the United States to "win" in Afghanistan,
but it will be impossible for the Taliban to do so."
-Gen.Stanley McChrystal admitted Taliban is winning and they control
70% of the country side. If use doesn't win that automatically means
Taliban won, they don't have to conquer anything but just maintain
status quo.
And this war was never about human rights, democracy or any other high
moral ideals.
Posted By: hartlex @ 12/06/2009 3:45:01 PM
There are a few inconvenient facts that Fareed Zakaria neglected to
mention in his admiring assessment of President Obama's accomodative
foreign policy. Despite Obama's blandishments, (1) Iran and North
Korea are rushing full speed ahead with their nuclear weapons
programs, (2) there's no chance that Russia or China will help us
bring them to heel, and (3) there's likewise no chance that China will
stop manipulating the value of its currency in order to bolster its
own economy and handicap ours. Not only that, Obama has gained nothing
by bowing down to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, cozying up to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, or avoiding any criticism of Venezuelan
dictator Hugo Chavez. In short, Obama can't claim a single significant
diplomatic success as a result of his supposedly cool and calculating
overtures.
Reply Report Abuse Posted By: garcilaso @ 12/06/2009 4:35:36 PM
Posted By: classicmacos @ 12/06/2009 11:32:55 AM
This is just more water carrying by the corrupted press for Obama...
you can't have it both ways. He is our new warhawk president.
There is no more journalistic intergrity and this proves it.
Obama is the worst puppet president of the one world order that we
have had to date.
All he has done is destroy the country to give our tax dollars to his
banker friends.
Posted By: garcilaso @ 12/06/2009 4:30:27 PM
You are just a hard core fanatic Christian Republican who gets
incensed about women who choose about abortion, but does not give a
hoot that 40.000 Americans die for lack insurance and your excuse is
that is cost too much money while in last 8 years your pal Bush
depleted the American Treasury in a war with a country that had
nothing to do with 911. How do you like them apples?
Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 12/06/2009 3:53:16 PM
The Englishee fem on English television was saying how the false
climate-warming data is NOT false at all unless someone insults him
and his other scam artists by being critical of their phony data.
It's on U TUBE and as funny as the logical twists and warps of this
newsweek article about Obama thwe Hawk and all he knows and thinks.
But the U Tube clip ends with the Englishee fem calling an
accomplished American an A..Hole. How funny!
Englishee twerp socialists always make me laugh! What an act!
U Tube trumps Newsweek, again.
Posted By: sesanders @ 12/06/2009 3:49:52 PM
I like Obama's vision for our foreign policy. His decision not to
chastise other countries should make it easier for us to engage with
them and influence them. Nobody or country ever got anywhere calling
other people names...it breeds hostility and resistance. George Bush
gave democracy a bad rap with all his pontificating and strutting.
Every time he opened his mouth, he made 100,000 more enemies for
America and while it made him feel big and important, it made the rest
of the world worry that we might turn our sights on them, even our
Allies which Bush managed to insult.
Posted By: newcon @ 12/06/2009 2:34:49 PM
I wanted to enjoy reading this article, but the wholesale endorsement
of a power-mad, Left-leaning President stuck in my throat. The
author's incredibly benign view of a President bent on government
involvement in every aspect of the lives of American citizens speaks
of either naivete or political bias. Mr. Obama's foreign policy, like
his domestic agenda, is based upon a desire to transform America into
something resembling an EU country. American exceptionalism is the
foundation of our former strength in the world, and that is the very
thing this President seems hell-bent on destroying.
Posted By: LMarcT @ 12/06/2009 3:27:55 PM
Naivete or political bias... unlike yours? And you know Obama
"desires" how? How on earth is the foreign policy like an EU country?
You mean not cowboy-like?
Posted By: basilstamos @ 12/06/2009 3:11:22 PM
Fareed, your historical analysis is pure rubbish. Nixon escalated the
war in Vietnam sending and additional 20,000 American soldiers and
hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, mostly civilians, to their grave.
The bombings of N Vietnam and Cambodia are consider among the most
barbaric acts in the history of modern warfare. And what did this
achieve? Peace with honor? Cambodia is still suffering from Nixon and
Kissinger's illegal war.
Obama had better reverse course or we'll put a more progressive man on
the ticket in 2012. Feingold for President?
Basil Stamos
By: subframer @ 12/06/2009 2:42:18 PM
Fareed is super-knowledgeable, and unlike me does not instantly oppose
anything Barack Obama is for. Fareed is a better man than me, and this
article was/is a great read....
Posted By: FifthFantasy @ 12/06/2009 2:00:51 PM
We'll be back, don't worry. People forget the US is the only thing
that has kept the world stable since the end of WWII. When the
pressure builds the US will get agressive again. Obama can not erasse
200+ years of constistent history, he knows this. The thing is that
the rest of the world needs America, but America dosen't need the rest
of the world. Countries like China will find this out eventually.
Right now the world is so focused on the world econmey they forget
about history. When you look at history there is very little evidence
that a global econmey lasts forever. People thought the same at the
begnning of the 20th century as they do today, that world econmey
would hold the world toghter and anyone that went against it is doomed
to die out. The reality was we had three major conflicts during that
time, none of which were really started by the US. Many think China is
the next superpower, but the area of the world they have control over
is much smaller than that of the US and it's closest allies., which
extends two oceans. Asia needs the US, but the US can live without
Asia.
Posted By: erika paradine @ 12/06/2009 12:52:09 PM
Let's all give Obama a break. He's done more in the last 11 months
than the Bush administration has taken in 8 years. I'm not a
warmonger, but he's taking a risk. Which is something anyone who is
successful knows you must do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesn't. The American people need to get their bunched up panties from
their ass.
Posted By: mac101 @ 12/06/2009 11:28:18 AM
Does anyone else see the irony of awarding the Nobel Peace prize to
the man who just ordered 30,000 more troops into a war zone?
Does anyone else see the irony of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan,
who did not bomb us, and ignoring Al Qaeda hiding in Pakistan, who
did?
Does anyone else understand that the two biggest imports America buys
from the Middle East, heroin and oil, are the main currency paying for
the terrorists' guns, and that ending these imports would achieve our
goals of breaking the terrorists, without spilling a drop of American
blood?
If Obama really wants to earn the Nobel Peace prize, he needs to
change the economic balance, not the military balance. Eliminating our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and remove the profit motive for
growing huge crops of poppies, will achieve far more in the long run
than sending 30,000 troops, or 300,00 troops, or any amount of troops,
to the region.
It's not just about our economy, it's also about THEIR economy.
Stupid.
Posted By: hellboy07 @ 12/06/2009 10:04:36 AM
Which rock has this moron Fareed Zakaria been living under? Does he
not know that Karzai is the most despised man in Afghanistan today?
Does this stupid idiot not know that Taliban enjoy the support of most
of the pashtuns in Afghanistan. Does this moron not know that it is
because of this support that Taliban control almost 80% of the
country? Does this stupid moron not know that most Afghans hate
Americans for invading their country? Does this stupid moron not know
afghans call us invaders and not liberators? Does this moron not know
that the Taliban had won before we entered Afghanistan and it is very
possible they can win again given the SUPPORT that they enjoy among
pashtuns? Has any idea crossed his puny, moronic mind that the Taliban
might possibly be getting aide also from Russia who might see this as
a good oppertunity to avenge what we did to them in this same country
not too long ago? Does this stupid dumbshit not know that most of the
members of the massive coalition do not actively engage the Taliban?
Does this stupid, extremely retarded so-called analyst not know that
Pakistan will only fight the Taliban who attack its cities and make
allies of the other Taliban as a counter against India in Afghanistan?
Somebody please kick the stupid, moron writer of this article in the
butt so that he can wake up and stop dreaming.
Posted By: highlandot @ 12/06/2009 7:48:01 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/225824
...and I am Sid harth
bademiyansubhanallah
Some Afghans Trust Taliban Shadow Gov't
Washington Post: Disappointed by Corruption of Karzai Gov't, Many Turn
to Taliban-Appointed Officials for Swift Justice
In this January 2009 file photo, villagers in Mehterlam, the capital
of Laghman province, protest the U.S. and Afghan governments. As
Karzai's administration is accused of corruption and disarray, many
Afghanis are turning to Taliban-appointed governors, police chiefs and
judges for swift justice. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
Like nearly all provinces in Afghanistan, this one has two governors.
The first was appointed by President Hamid Karzai and is backed by
thousands of U.S. troops. He governs this mountainous eastern Afghan
province by day, cutting the ribbons on new development projects and,
according to fellow officials with knowledge of his dealings, taking a
generous personal cut of the province's foreign assistance budget.
The second governor was chosen by Taliban leader Mohammad Omar and,
hunted by American soldiers, sneaks in only at night. He issues edicts
on "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" stationery, plots attacks against
government forces and fires any lower-ranking Taliban official tainted
by even the whiff of corruption.
As the United States prepares to send 30,000 additional troops to
Afghanistan to bolster Karzai's beleaguered government, Taliban
leaders are quietly pushing ahead with preparations for a moment they
believe is inevitable: their return to power. The Taliban has done so
by establishing an elaborate shadow government of governors, police
chiefs, district administrators and judges that in many cases already
has more bearing on the lives of Afghans than the real government.
"These people in the shadow government are running the country now,"
said Khalid Pashtoon, a legislator from the southern province of
Kandahar who has close ties to Karzai. "They're an important part of
the chaos."
U.S. military officials say that dislodging the Taliban's shadow
government and establishing the authority of the Karzai administration
over the next 18 months will be critical to the success of President
Obama's surge strategy. But the task has been complicated by the fact
that in many areas, Afghans have decided they prefer the severe but
decisive authority of the Taliban to the corruption and inefficiency
of Karzai's appointees.
When the Taliban government was ousted in 2001 following five
disastrous years in power, a majority of Afghans cheered the departure
of a regime marked by the harsh repression of women and minorities,
anemic government services and international isolation. Petty thieves
had their hands chopped off, and girls were barred from school.
Today, there is little evidence the Taliban has fundamentally changed.
But from Kunduz province in the north to Kandahar in the south, even
government officials concede that their allies have lost the people's
confidence and that, increasingly, residents are turning to shadow
Taliban officials to solve their problems.
Pashtoon said that on a recent visit to Kandahar, he heard from
constituents who were pleased with the Taliban's judges. "Islamic law
is always quicker. You get resolution on the spot," he said. "If they
had brought the case to the government courts, it would have taken a
year or two years, or maybe it would never be resolved at all. With
the Taliban, it takes an hour."
For many Afghans, there is no choice. Across broad swaths of the
country, especially Afghanistan's vast rural areas, the government has
little to no presence, leaving the Taliban as the only authority.
Shadow government officials collect taxes, forcing farmers at gunpoint
to turn over 10 percent of their crops, according to accounts of
officials and residents. Taliban district chiefs conscript young men
into the radical Islamist movement's army of insurgents, threatening
death for those unwilling to serve. And the Taliban's judges issue
rulings marked by a ruthless efficiency: With no jails in which to
hold prisoners, execution by hanging or automatic rifle is the swiftly
delivered punishment for convicted murderers and rapists, or for
anyone found guilty of working with the government.
"Whether people like them or not, they have to support them," said
Fatima Aziz, a parliament member from Kunduz, a province where she
said the shadow government has emerged only in the past year.
There are no clear lines between the Taliban's fighting force and its
shadow administration. Insurgents double as police chiefs; judges may
spend an afternoon hearing cases, then take up arms at dusk.
But the shadow government represents an essential element of the
Taliban's strategy. The Taliban emerged in the mid-1990s as an
alternative to the lawlessness of the warring mujaheddin factions, and
its leaders quickly imposed rigid rules of order in areas under their
control.
Having been forced underground or into exile in 2001, the Taliban has
returned not just to wage war but also to demonstrate that it is
capable of delivering a different model of governance from the one
offered by Karzai and his allies. Afghans who live under Taliban
control say the group's weaknesses remain the same as during the
movement's five-year tenure ruling the country. The Taliban provides
virtually no social services, leaving Afghans on their own when it
comes to health care, education and development.
Fed Up With Corruption
Hajji Hakimullah, a 38-year-old shop owner in Laghman's central city,
Mehtar Lam, said he celebrated when the Taliban was ousted in 2001
because he believed the movement's extremist ideology was sending the
country backward at a time when it should have been modernizing.
But after eight years of Karzai's government, he said he would happily
welcome the Taliban's return. Government officials, he said, have
demanded hundreds of bribes just to let him operate his modest fabric
shop, and he can't take any more corruption.
"If he was honest, I would accept even a Sikh from India as my
governor. But if my own father was governor and he was corrupt, I
would pray that Allah destroys him," said Hakimullah as he sipped a
murky cup of tea, his walls lined with a kaleidoscopic array of
silks.
The Karzai-appointed governor of Laghman, Lutfullah Mashal, has
developed what some fellow officials and residents here say is a well-
earned reputation for corruption.
The governor, they say, has pocketed money from the sale of state
lands, earned profits on the local timber trade and stalled
international development work until the contractors pay him bribes.
The provincial council chief, Gulzar Sangarwal, played an audio
recording for a Washington Post reporter that he said involved a
provincial official insisting that a bridge construction project would
not move forward until the governor was paid at least $30,000.
The authenticity of the tape could not be independently verified.
Mashal, in an interview, denied taking any bribes and said local
contractors had turned against him because he demanded high-quality
work.
Fearsome But Clean
While Mashal is viewed with contempt by many residents, the shadow
governor, Maulvi Shaheed Khail, is regarded as fearsome but clean. A
former minister in the Taliban government, he became the shadow
governor here last year after being released from government custody.
Residents said he spends most of his time in exile in Pakistan but
occasionally crosses the border to discuss strategy with his
lieutenants.
This year, Taliban forces took full control of several Laghman
villages, forcing 1,700 families linked to a pro-government tribe to
flee. The families now live in a squalid camp on the edge of Mehtar
Lam.
The tribe's leader, Malik Hazratullah, said that back in his home
village, "there is no stealing, there is no corruption. The Taliban
has implemented Islamic law."
By contrast, he said, provincial officials regularly steal wheat, oil
and flour intended for the refugees in the camp and sell it on the
black market.
"When I see what this government is doing, it makes me want to join
the Taliban," said Hazratullah, a massive, one-eyed man whose beard
extends to his chest.
But Hazratullah has already cast his lot with the United States and
Karzai, and he said it would be nearly impossible for him to switch
back now.
If the Taliban government ever returns to power across Afghanistan,
Hazratullah said, he has no doubt what will happen: "They will cut off
my head."
By Griff Witte
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/08/politics/washingtonpost/main5936237.shtml
chhotemianinshallah
By Walid Phares
Taliban waiting for 2012?
Now that we know the administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan,
what is the Taliban strategy against the United States?
Such a question is warranted to be able to project the clash between
the two strategies and assess the accuracy of present U.S. policies in
the confrontation with the forces it is fighting against in that part
of the world.
So, how would the Taliban/al-Qaida war room counter NATO and the
Afghan Government based on the Obama Administration's battle plan?
Strategic Perceptions
The jihadi war room is now aware that the administration has narrowed
its scope to defeat the so-called al-Qaida organization while limiting
its goal to depriving the Taliban from achieving full victory, i.e.
depriving them "from the momentum." In strategic wording this means
that the administration won’t give the time and the means, let alone
the necessary long term commitment to fully defeat the Taliban as a
militia and militant network.
The jihadist strategists now understand that Washington’s advisers
still recommend talking to the Taliban, the entire Taliban, but only
after the latter would feel weak and pushed back enough to seek such
talks. Underneath this perception, the Salafi Islamists’ analysts
realize that present American analysis concludes that al-Qaida and the
Taliban are two different things, and that it is possible to defeat
the first and eventually engage the second.
Such a jihadist understanding of U.S. defective perceptions will give
the Taliban and al-Qaida a first advantage: knowing that your enemy,
the United States, isn’t seeing you as you really are.
Strategic Engagement
The US has reconfirmed that the goal of the mission in Afghanistan is
to destroy al-Qaida, train the Afghan armed forces but not to engage
in nation-building. Unlike previous American commitments, which
weren’t very successful anyway, the current strategy officially
ignores the ideological battle.
Hence the Taliban understands that their lifeline to further
recruitment based on madrassas graduations is wide open. Washington’s
efforts and dollars won’t touch the ideological factory of jihadism,
which is the strategic depth of the Taliban and al-Qaida.
Hence, the jihadi network in Afghanistan will continue and further
develop its indoctrination structures, untouched and un-bothered by
American military escalation. The Marines and other NATO allies will
be fighting today’s Taliban, while tomorrow’s jihadists will be
receiving their instruction in full tranquility.
By the time the US deadline to withdraw would be reached, in 2011,
2012, or even beyond, the future forces of the enemy will be ready to
be deployed. One wave of terrorists will be weakened by the action of
the U.S. and NATO armed forces, while the next wave will be prepared
to take over later.
Deadly Deadline
The administration’s plan included a timeline for withdrawal from the
central Asian country (although reinterpreted as beginning of
withdrawal). Basing their assessment on the notion of “no open ended
engagement,” the shapers of the new Afghanistan strategy have told the
enemy’s war room on camera that America’s time in Afghanistan is until
2013 maximum, after which it will be Taliban time again.
As many analysts have concluded, all the jihadists war planners have
to do is to wait out the hurricane of escalation. The deadly deadline
proposed in the strategy has no precedent in the history of
confrontation with totalitarian forces. The Taliban waited out eight
years, what are two, three or eight more years, if the U.S.-led
coalition's action is not qualitatively (not just quantitatively)
different?
A Surge to Exit
As presented to the Afghan people, the administration's new plan for
the battlefield is seen as a last surge before the general exit of the
country. The Taliban’s war room has understood the equation. Thirty
thousand more U.S. troops will deploy with their heavy equipment,
backed by another 5,000 to 10,000 allied forces. Offensives will take
place in Helmund and other areas. Special forces will move to multiple
places and shelling will harass the Islamist militias as long as two
years or more.
The Taliban will incur losses and al-Qaida's operatives will be put
under heavier pressure: All that is noted in Mullah Umar’s book and
saved on Zawahiri’s laptop. Then what?
Then the time for exit is up and U.S and NATO forces begin their
withdrawal. When that happens, the surviving Taliban, plus the new
wave just graduating from madrassas, or the jihadi volunteers sent
from the four corners of the virtual “Caliphate” will have a choice to
make: Either they will accept the U.S. negotiators' offer to join the
Afghan government or — depending on their assessment then — will
reject the offer and shell the "infidel troops" as they pull out.
In a nutshell, the new strategy is convenient to that Taliban war
room: They now can figure it all out until the Mayan year of 2012 —
and way beyond.
All that it takes for democracies to offer the totalitarians victories
is to not understand the latter’s long-term goals. And we’ve just done
that, so far.
Dr. Walid Phares is director of the Future Terrorism Project at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies and author of "The
Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad."
December 7, 2009 11:46 PM
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/12/talibans_counter_strategy_is_b.php
chhotemianinshallah
Tac Hel
Some days in your life are just plain cooler than others. I had a
pretty good one the other day, thanks in part to the good folks of 408
Squadron deployed as part of the JTF-Afg Air Wing, who shuttled us
from KAF to Camp Nathan Smith, home of the KPRT.
Note that the horizon isn't staying particularly still. That's not
shakiness in my hand. It's the bird yanking and banking all over the
place. And I'm told that if we'd taken any fire - not likely in the
daytime - I'd have been more worried about hanging on to the camera at
all than taking pictures with it.
For two of the reporters on the trip, this was their first ride in a
helicopter. Ever. I told them never to bother paying for one, since it
couldn't possibly live up.
Like I said, for a guy who's always had a fascination with flying,
some days are cooler than others. But apart from the roller-coaster
thrill of the ride, it was evidence of something important: we don't
absolutely need to do everything by convoy anymore, and we don't
absolutely need to beg rides on allied choppers all the time anymore.
As Col Coates, commander of the JTF-Afg Air Wing and himself a
helicopter pilot, said to us when we toured the facilities at Whiskey
Ramp the other day:
In my experience, there are never enough helicopters to go
around...There will always be a requirement for troops to be on the
roads. But if aviation can reduce those risks, we should.
And it really can. There were always questions about whether the
Griffons could handle the high and hot of Kandahar. And with the Air
Wing standing up in the cooler season, we still have yet to see just
how effective they'll be when the tougher conditions hit in the
summer. But as one of the chopper pilots told me, every nation flying
helos over here has issues with the conditions. You find a way to make
it work. Even Col Coates, who is very careful with his words around
the media, admitted:
Everyone in the tactical helicopter world has been itching to get over
here for a long time.
They train with the Army all the time. They've lived with them in the
field, worked closely with them on exercises, and then when the Army
went to Afghanistan - when their friends and comrades went to war -
they stayed back in Canada, grinding their teeth. Imagine knowing you
could help, and not being allowed to - the frustration of it.
But they're here now. Hooah.
I asked Col Coates just what the Griffons would be doing, and he said
their primary role would be escort for the Chinooks. That surprised me
- were they not supposed to be doing Close Combat Support (CCS) as
well? He replied that that's not what they're here for. According to
him, we'll try to let the dedicated attack helo assets handle
that...but then he added a caveat:
But never say never. Two years ago, nobody thought we'd have Griffons
here at all.
I'm guessing the CF isn't picking up Dillons, and eventually - RUMINT
- M3 50-cals solely for escorting the heavies, though. Of course, I'm
only speculating, here.
Speaking of the heavies, it's a beautiful thing seeing them sitting
there on the ramp with a maple leaf painted on the side. And that's
not all that's getting painted on...
Congrats to all involved in getting the helo side of the Air Wing set
up. JTF-Afg is much more capable with your addition.
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 12:00 PM
4 Comments:
membrain said...
Damian, this is excellent stuff. Congratulations on years of hard
work. Let's hope this is the first of many.
I've posted a link over at my blog to try and help boost contributions
to the tip jar.
All the best and thanks so much for doing this.
1:56 PM, January 22, 2009
she said...
What? You hung out with 408 and there's no mention of Mr. Orange
Toque? It appears his handler must be falling down on the job :)
Love reading your posts since you landed in the Sandbox.
10:19 PM, January 22, 2009
Shere Khan said...
I Think I see MOT hanging out on the end of the pitot tube on the
first chopper. Heheh.
Stay cool Damian!
7:09 PM, January 23, 2009
Dwayne said...
Sorry to disappoint Shere but that is a standard "Remove Before
Flight" pennant that is part of the pitot tube cover. Thanks to Damian
for this, it is nice to see some aviation news from in theater.
8:27 PM, January 23, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/tac-hel.html
chhotemianinshallah
On the boardwalk
The boardwalk at KAF is just about the worst strip-mall you've ever
seen. Its one redeeming quality is that it's better than any of the
other shopping options at KAF...since there aren't any to speak of.
There's a French bistro that's so new they were still screwing doors
on the cupboards when we came in. In fact, there's construction
everywhere at KAF, including on the boardwalk. This picture is of a
new Italian restaurant that's coming soon.
Lots of stores selling cheap t-shirts and junky knicknacks. A local
guy selling rugs. Another one selling leather jackets.
I popped into one of the American PX stores on the boardwalk, and
found this little bit of politically incorrect funniness. I saw the
logo on this t-shirt and thought immediately of Kathy and Wendy:
The Timmies always has a line-up. Always. And it's full of Americans
and Brits and Romanians and Dutch, as well as a healthy contingent of
desert CADPAT uniforms. The only reason there's no queue in this shot
is that we arrived before it opened in the morning (I know - that was
my first thought too: there's a Tim Horton's somewhere in the world
that's not open 24/7? Heresy!). Honestly, the base could support two,
especially if they delivered like the Pizza Hut does.
One thing I did find interesting about the shops: there's no metal
coinage for change. You pay for everything with American dollars. But
you get these cardboard pogs back for change. They've got pictures of
American soldiers and kit on one side, and an a large-print indication
of what they're worth on the other. I kept a bunch for souvenirs for
my boy.
Of course, shopping's not all there is to do there. There's a ball-
hockey rink inside the square confines of the boardwalk, and a big
open space where I saw some people playing a rough game of cricket
with a tennis ball, using a cigarette disposal stand as a wicket. When
entertainers come in, often the performance is down at the boardwalk,
I'm told.
There's also a small memorial there, one of many you seem to find all
over military establishments wherever they are.
After spending a couple of days getting shepherded all over KAF, I
understood what many of the troops there told me: they'd much rather
be out at the FOB's than on the base. It's a huge, muddy (or dusty in
the summer) camp, with very few things to do other than work. Oh,
Canada House is a welcome place to gather and watch the big-screen
TV's, like everyone did for the Obama inauguration the other night.
But it gets tired really quickly. And if you're going to lack for
creature comforts, you might as well be out at the pointy-end - at
least, that's the reasoning I heard again and again from people who'd
been out and rotated back into KAF. They were itching to get out
again.
You can only walk the boardwalk so many times.
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:19 PM
5 Comments:
BBS said...
I guess the carboard pogs make sense, no jingling change in the
pocket. Probably a lot cheaper to ship to Afghanistan than real coin.
12:14 AM, January 23, 2009
she said...
Now I'm curious. How'd you find the Timmies closed during daylight
hours? I've got pics of soldiers in line ups (inside and out) of
Timmies at 4 dark 30...
1:44 AM, January 23, 2009
VW said...
Have you had a chance to visit the PX near TLS yet? Because I'm sure
you'll just loooove the cutlery.
9:34 PM, January 23, 2009
Revnant Dream said...
That was an interesting post. Thank you. Have a question though. Are
they expecting more American troops?
5:57 PM, January 24, 2009
pst314 said...
The Major League Infidel t-shirt is by Crye Precision
(cryeprecision.com) but their website says that they are down for a
redesign/relaunch.
9:14 PM, January 27, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-boardwalk.html
chhotemianinshallah
Corrections: thankless and rewarding
When we got back to Camp Nathan Smith from the patrol into Dand, I was
buzzing. The entire event drew such a high degree of focus from me, I
was still coming down when we were told the bad news: there was a
comms shutdown. An IED strike had hit a joint Canadian-Afghan foot
patrol, and there was a critical Canadian casualty, although not VSA
(Vital Signs Absent).
Between the high of the patrol and the sobering shock of the wounded
soldier whose name we never learned, I'll admit I wasn't paying too
much attention when LCdr Babinsky told us we could stash our PPE in
our quarters before going to watch Afghan prison guards being trained.
If I hadn't been so absorbed in my own thoughts, I'd probably have
dismissed the Corrections training photo-op as filler put on to the
schedule between the end of the patrol - which could have been
anytime, given the realities of what can happen outside the wire - and
dinner. I certainly wasn't expecting a great deal from the experience.
I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first surprise was leaving the camp. Or, more accurately, leaving
the Canadian side of the camp: the ANP have their own compound
attached to, but separate from the Canadian portion. Jean Laroche,
LCdr Pierre Babinsky, Maj Vance White and I walked through a big metal
door on a big metal gate, the officers loaded a magazine into their
sidearms as per SOP, and we approached a decent-sized white building
with a sign on the wall that read "Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction
Team Training Centre."
Inside, we discovered a Correctional Service of Canada officer
training a cadre of Afghan prison guards. The first thing I noticed
was that if the Terp couldn't speak fluent Maritimer, he could at
least understand and translate it for the students. The instructor was
a solidly-built man wearing black leather gloves, khaki cargo pants
and a camp shirt whose demeanour I could have mistaken for military
had it not been for the greying goatee he sported, and the CSC patches
on the sleeves of his shirt. He was booming out instructions on
handcuffing techniques in a voice used to command, encouraging and
correcting as required.
The recruits were a mix of young and old Afghan males in olive and
grey uniforms, and they were obviously new to this aspect of the
training. As it turned out, this was their very first day learning
these methods. They messed up quite a bit, and the instructor repeated
again and again: "This is your first day. At the end of two weeks,
you'll be able to do this in your sleep." The older ones were far more
vocal and assertive than the younger ones were, but there were a
couple who seemed better trained, and they were acting as assistants
to the class. All deferred to the Canadian, though - he'd obviously
earned their respect.
I watched as the instructor put them through their paces, answered
their questions, then got down and did pushups with them:
"1...2...3...4...hold it...hold it...5." He then set them to sweeping
and mopping the dust from the mats on the floor of the training room
before sending them home for the day. He said he had to head back to
his room for a moment, but he'd meet us back at the mess tent for a
coffee and answer any questions we might have.
"Only nine months, eh, Vance?" he called to the camp PAffO as we
walked away.
"What's that all about?" I asked.
"Oh, he doesn't do media stuff. This is the first interview he'll have
done since he's been here."
When we met back at the mess tent, I finally caught his name: Kevin
Cluett. He's one of four Canadian corrections officers in all of
Afghanistan: one works with the national government in Kabul, one is a
senior leadership mentor for the local prison warden and supervisor of
the crew at the KPRT, and two are mentors and trainers to the guards
at Sarposa prison. Kevin is a trainer.
With twelve years as a Corrections Officer, he had to undergo a
competitive process to earn his one-year slot here at the KPRT. He's
been on the ground since May of 2008, but was also involved in the
Roto's training at CFB Wainwright prior to deployment. Correctional
Service of Canada's ultimate objective in the mission is to work with
the Afghans to get their prison system up to international standards.
"Not to Canadian standards, mind you," Kevin's careful to stress, "to
international standards."
What he's teaching is a six-week Basic Officer Training Program. It's
broken into three phases. Phase 1 is a mix of mostly classroom
lectures: communication skills, human rights standards, the Afghan
constitution, first aid, etc. Phase 2 is what we were watching:
control techniques and practical situations. A CF instructor also
provides basic weapons training to the guards as well. Phase 3 deals
with more complex problems: cell extractions, aggressive prisoners,
riot control, and the like.
The course is being taught to all the guards at Sarposa. That's right,
Basic Training comes after they're already working. Welcome to
Afghanistan, where letting the perfect be the enemy of the good would
mean nothing ever got done.
Kevin's biggest challenge, he says, is getting proper time to mentor
the guards in the prison itself. Right now the Corrections Officers
are only allowed out to the prison for two hours at a time, three
times per week. That's not enough, according to Kevin, who's working
right now on getting approval to do more.
The training proceeds slowly. Most of the guards have little or no
literacy skills, and many of them lack a good deal of the physical
coordination we take for granted. "Remember, they didn't grow up
playing sports like we did," Kevin told us. Apparently jumping jacks
were a sight to behold when they first got started. And without
reading or writing skills, they can't document anything they do.
While the trainer's job is tough, the trainees have it even tougher.
Working at Sarposa is dangerous. But they're grateful for the Canadian
help:
“Building the capacity of the corrections sector is important for
Afghans. We want to thank the Canadians from the KPRT for everything
they have done to support us,” said Colonel Abdullah Balwar, Director
of Sarpoza Prison. “The prison staff is eager to learn and want to
improve their skills. Through training and mentoring delivered by
Canadian officials, I have seen a significant increase in
professionalism.”
With the uncertainty of what comes next after the Canadian mission's
"end date" of 2011, one of the priorities for the CSC personnel is
training Afghans to be trainers themselves. "That way, the process
continues, even if we leave," Kevin explained.
Kevin said the job is frustrating, but incredibly rewarding. He told
us a story about one of the first days of Phase 1 classroom training.
As Kevin was starting the lesson, he noticed one Afghan guard shifting
and fidgeting in his seat like he couldn't sit still. Kevin asked the
Terp to find out what was wrong. The man's response was an eye-opener:
"I'm twenty-eight years old, and I'm so happy - this is the first time
in my life sitting in a real classroom with a teacher and books!"
This is what motivates a man with a wife and two kids at home in Nova
Scotia to put in for a three month extension of his year-long tour: so
that he can see the last of the trainees he started with finish Phase
3.
"It's about finishing what I started," Kevin said. "For the average
person used to North American standards, you come in and say 'these
guys have so much to learn.' But if you'd seen them since the
beginning of their training - they've come so far..."
When the average Canadian hears about our mission in Afghanistan on
the television or radio, or reads about it in the newspaper, he likely
learns of fighting. No, he likely learns of Canadians dying in an IED
explosion, since that's really all that seems to attract the public's
attention these days. With very few exceptions (and congrats to Darah
Hansen, who was at Camp Nathan Smith at the same time I was for
telling this story as well), the picture Canadians see of their
nation's work in one of the poorest, neediest countries in the entire
world is nothing but an incomplete sketch.
Civilians like Kevin Cluett work tirelessly side-by-side with their
military comrades, often on longer tours, with very little of the
political turf-war interdepartmental infighting that characterizes the
story in Ottawa. On the ground, the Whole of Government team - DFAIT,
CIDA, CSC, CivPol, and everyone else - rolls their eyes at the inside
baseball being played by the bureaucrats around Parliament Hill.
Then they roll up their sleeves, grab their Terp, and with no public
fanfare, thanks or admiration, they get to work. Well, here's one big
THANKS, with a good deal of admiration: Bravo Zulu, Mr. Cluett.
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 6:02 AM
3 Comments:
David M said...
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the
Front: 01/29/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the
home front.
11:10 AM, January 29, 2009
Dave in Pa. said...
"I'm twenty-eight years old, and I'm so happy - this is the first time
in my life sitting in a real classroom with a teacher and books!"
Now instead of morbid dwelling and pontificating on casualty numbers,
wouldn't that be a wonderful title for an article at the Globe & Mail
or the Star, talking about what Canadians are achieving for the people
of Afghanistan!
1:46 PM, January 29, 2009
membrain said...
Great stuff. Choked me up there for a moment. Linked to it. Keep up
the great work Damian. Thanks so much.
12:44 PM, January 30, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/corrections-thankless-and-rewarding.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Tim McGirk Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
ENLARGE PHOTO+
Fighters with the Taliban stand on a hillside at Maydan Shahr in
Wardak province, Afghanistan
AFP / Getty
President Obama has ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan,
and NATO is chipping in with an additional 7,000. That's good news for
General Stanley McChrystal, who has warned the President that the war
is being lost. But the decision to send reinforcements is unlikely to
spell defeat for the Taliban and their al-Qaeda cohort.
New U.S. combat brigades may be able to secure the scorching southern
deserts around Kandahar and Helmand province, and maybe even a swath
of territory along the eastern border with Pakistan, but that won't
stop the Taliban from popping up elsewhere. The insurgents have
already made inroads into the Northern mountains and in the far West.
The border with Pakistan is 1,600 miles long, traversing craggy ranges
and deserts so hot that only scorpions and the Taliban can thrive
there. You could post 30,000 troops, even twice that number, in the
middle of these badlands, and the Taliban would still get across.
(See photos of the battle against the Taliban.)
At best, the U.S. and its NATO allies can hope that by hitting the
Taliban with renewed ferocity, they can create a space in which the
feeble Afghan army and police forces can be trained to stand up to the
insurgents. Once that happens, say optimists, aid development can
finally begin to enrich the lives of the ordinary Afghans and not just
the foreign contractors and warlords. Even that is a huge gamble: the
administration of President Hamid Karzai has proved itself corrupt and
petulant, and without security, there is nothing to stop the Taliban
from burning down more girls' schools or destroying the bridges that
aid donors are trying to erect. And Obama's vow to start withdrawing
troops in 18 months will reinforce what the Taliban already knew —
that the U.S. won't stay forever — which puts time on the side of the
insurgency and allows it to simply disperse when faced with
overwhelming firepower and re-emerge later.
But the thinking in London and Washington is that a punishing assault
against the Taliban might persuade some of the movement's commanders —
those not tied to al-Qaeda — to negotiate with Kabul. Also, the
Taliban are an unruly bunch, led by regional commanders who do not
always take orders from their Commander of the Faithful, Mullah Omar.
Kabul officials say that with the proper approach, some senior Taliban
could be coaxed into a truce.
But that means starting from scratch. For the past eight years of war,
says one Western diplomat, efforts by both the NATO forces and
Karzai's government to bring Taliban fighters into the fold have been
"laughable." The U.S. and Karzai were often at loggerheads on the
issue: the Afghan President wanted amnesty extended to all Taliban
members, from Omar down to the lowliest turbaned jihadi, while the
Americans want to win over only the lower and mid-ranking Taliban.
(Read "Five Flawed Assumptions of Obama's Afghan Surge.")
A Western official closely connected to efforts to reach out to the
Taliban blamed the failure squarely on President Karzai. In Kandahar
and Helmand, which are now major Taliban strongholds, the official
says, Karzai personally appointed many "violent and predatory"
district officials and police chiefs from his own extended tribe.
"When the police started robbing and pillaging," the official
continues, "the villagers had no choice but to turn to the local
[Taliban] commanders for protection."
Any deal with the Taliban would have to involve a radical change of
Pakistani attitudes. Today, some Pakistani officials make no secret
that they consider the Taliban a strategic asset in Afghanistan, even
though the U.S. has since 9/11 pumped more than $7 billion in military
aid into Pakistan for use against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Former
President Pervez Musharraf recently admitted publicly that a large
chunk of that military aid was used to bolster defenses against
neighboring India, which the Pakistani military views as a far greater
threat than the rise of Islamic militancy in its tribal areas
bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistanis distrust Karzai, thinking him
too pro-India, and they believe that when the West loses interest and
exits from Afghanistan, restoring a second Taliban government in Kabul
will best suit Pakistan's interests.
Pressuring Pakistan to stop aiding the Taliban would get easier if
Islamabad were to stop distinguishing between those Taliban who fight
the Pakistani state and those who confine their hostilities to
Afghanistan. The current battle between Pakistan's army and local
Taliban militants in the border area of South Waziristan has certainly
slowed the number of Pakistani volunteers infiltrating Afghanistan to
kill American soldiers. The Pakistani military continues to pursue a
twin-track policy of trying to crush the Pashtun tribes allied with
the Pakistani Taliban while making nonaggression pacts with those
fighting NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan. But that
relationship is fraying, because members of the Afghan Taliban are now
accusing the Pakistani military of complicity in the missile attacks
by U.S. aircraft on their hideouts inside Pakistani tribal territory.
More likely, the Pakistani military is powerless to stop the drone
attacks that, according to CIA leaks to the press, are bound to
intensify and could break the effective truce between the Pakistani
military and Afghan Taliban groups.
(See pictures of duty and downtime in Afghanistan.)
So far, Omar has stayed on the sidelines of Islamabad's battle against
the homegrown Pakistani Taliban. He doesn't want to lose covert
support from the Pakistani military and the spymasters of the Inter-
Services Intelligence, nor jeopardize the unmolested presence of his
leadership core in the city of Quetta.
For Obama's troop surge to succeed, Pakistan would have to sever ties
with the Afghan Taliban or else press key Taliban commanders into
peace talks with Kabul. As much as Pakistan would like to see a
different government with more Taliban influence in Kabul, its
generals will recognize that simply restoring the movement to power
would unleash another round of civil war in Afghanistan — Pashtuns vs.
everyone else — that would do little to stabilize Pakistan's domestic
turmoil. So the best-case outcome of Obama's surge may be that it
would force the Taliban, and their Pakistani backers, to accept some
form of compromise.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1945887,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Omar Waraich / Islamabad Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009
Pakistani army troops take positions near a Taliban stronghold in Kot
Kai, in a tribal area of Waziristan, along the Afghanistan border, on
Nov. 26, 2009
Naveed Sultan / AP
The Pakistani generals and politicians watching President Obama's West
Point address applauded his sensitive tone and offers of additional
support for their counterinsurgency efforts and fledgling democracy.
But Obama's plan to dispatch 30,000 extra troops to the war next door
has been greeted with ambivalence. While Obama's setting a date for
the beginning of a withdrawal was welcomed, the element of the new
strategy that has Pakistan's military sensing a long-awaited
opportunity is the prospect of negotiations with the Taliban.
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
The government in Islamabad greeted Obama's speech with "cautious
optimism." But, warned presidential spokesman Farahnaz Ispahani, if
the U.S. and NATO fail to eliminate militancy within Afghanistan
"speedily and in consultation with Pakistan, there is a fear of a
spillover effect." The same concern colors the thinking of the
military establishment, which will be making the decisions that matter
on the Pakistani side. "The army is caught in a conundrum," says Shuja
Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council. "It
doesn't want the U.S. to leave in a precipitous manner, but it also
concerned that by having more troops in Afghanistan, militants may be
pushed into Pakistan." Other observers believe that the effects of any
such spillover would be manageable. "The troops will be mainly in the
south," says former Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao. "I don't see much
cross-border movement happening there."
Pakistan's generals don't want a hasty U.S. withdrawal, which Nawaz
warns would mean "chaos, which is not to anyone's benefit." But they
welcomed the exit date cited by Obama in his speech because they do
want the U.S. to leave — in an orderly fashion, over time and in the
context of negotiations with the Taliban. Given its longtime
relationship with the Taliban leadership, which is generally believed
to be based in the Pakistani city of Quetta, Pakistan's military
establishment hopes to position itself as the mediator in talks that
they believe are inevitable.
"Under the circumstances, Obama has made the best of a bad bargain,"
says prominent opposition politician Mushahid Hussain. "He has lowered
his sights and limited his goals. Victory is no longer possible; there
will not be nation-building. There is pressure to come to the
negotiating table. The Pakistan army will feel comfortable in an
arrangement where they are partnering with the Americans on
negotiations."
Contrary to the American conventional wisdom that sees the U.S.
mission in Afghanistan as central to Pakistan's security, Pakistani
generals see a U.S. departure as key to stabilizing their country.
"What is happening on this side of the border will die down once the
American troops begin to withdraw," says Sherpao, echoing a widely
held Pakistani assumption. "The extra troops will apply pressure on
the Taliban, but then a parallel process would also start. By the time
they start leaving, a consensus will begin to be formed on the future
of Afghanistan."
The Pakistani army sees the conflict in Afghanistan being resolved
through negotiations that lead toward the establishment of a new
government with greater Pashtun representation and diminished Indian
influence. Pakistan's security establishment has never embraced Afghan
President Hamid Karzai's government, which it sees as dominated by the
ethnic Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara forces of the India-backed Northern
Alliance. And it fears that India is expanding its influence there
through massive development projects, even accusing India of using
Afghanistan as a base from which to destabilize Pakistan.
"Pakistan's aim has always been to have a friendly government in Kabul
that is an accurate representation of the Pashtun population," says
Nawaz. "If there's a reconfiguration of the Karzai government, it
brings more Pashtuns in, Pakistan may want to play a part to try and
bring in people that may be supporting the Taliban but are not
ideologues." Such a solution would probably not involve Mullah Omar
and the Afghan Taliban directly but would perhaps include the
notorious Haqqani network based in Pakistan's North Waziristan and
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hizb-e-Islami — both of which have
enjoyed extensive contacts with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence
agency.
But this is where Washington and Islamabad's interests collide. The
U.S. has warned Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari that it expects
Pakistani security forces to take action against the Afghan Taliban as
well as the Haqqani network and Hizb-e-Islami, but Pakistan is loath
to act against militants on its territory who confine their operations
to Afghanistan, focusing instead on those extremists who directly
challenge the Pakistani state. An unpopular and politically
beleaguered Zardari is in no position to help Obama.
Pakistani military officials say limited resources force them to
prioritize going after the Pakistani Taliban, while leaving militant
groups focused on Afghanistan largely unmolested. But observers say
that, in fact, the Pakistani military views the Afghan Taliban
leadership and groups such as Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami and the
Haqqanis as a means of securing its interests in Afghanistan. "It's
leverage in the sense that it allows them to have a government in
Kabul that is neutral, if not pro-Pakistan," says Nawaz. "That's why
they've always hedged on the Afghan Taliban."
Relations between Pakistan and the Obama Administration could be
sharply strained if Washington decides to expand its covert air
strikes on Pakistani soil. In recent years, Pakistani officials have
publicly protested but privately acquiesced when CIA-operated drone
strikes have targeted al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in the
mountainous tribal areas — a program that has eliminated more than a
dozen senior al-Qaeda operatives and even Baitullah Mehsud, the
founding leader of the Pakistani Taliban. But the perceived violation
of sovereignty has also enraged the Pakistani public. If the U.S.
decides to expand the target range of such strikes beyond the tribal
areas to go after the Afghan Taliban leadership in Quetta, that shift
would be intolerable for the Pakistani leadership.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1945134,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Time to Give Up the Ghost on bin Laden
By Robert Baer Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
Osama bin Laden, in a video that aired on the eve of the second
anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
Salah Malkawi / Getty
This week the Obama Administration made an unusual admission: It
doesn't have a clue as to where Osama bin Laden is. Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates said there hasn't been good intelligence on bin
Laden for years. National Security Adviser James Jones said the best
guess is that bin Laden may be moving back and forth across the Pak-
Afghan, a rugged mountain range that has never been governed.
(See pictures of Osama bin Laden.)
I spoke to an ex-CIA colleague who has been on the bin Laden hunt
since 9/11. "He's dead, of course," he said. "No wonder there's no
intelligence on him." But what about the audio- and videotapes? He
said they easily could have been digitally mastered from old tapes and
audio recordings. He quickly admitted that the CIA has no evidence
that bin Laden died. It's only a hunch — and years of experience
chasing fugitive terrorists.
The theory that bin Laden is dead doesn't get much currency in
Washington because it veers off into the realm of conspiracies. And
people who believe it are scared that the moment they air their view,
bin Laden will reappear. Anyhow, it's a real possibility that bin
Laden was killed at Tora Bora in late 2001 and is now buried under
tons of rock, never to be found. Or that he died of ill health in the
intervening years.
But let's accept for the sake of argument that bin Laden is alive and
well. Other than the obvious — he's living in an ungovernable part of
the world — what is known is that bin Laden maintains an
extraordinarily exacting standard of security. It is beyond anything
that we have ever seen. He has never been on a cell or satellite
phone. He doesn't use the Internet. And there is little doubt that the
people around him adhere to the same strict standards.
In the absence of intelligence, that's pretty much all we can say. And
by this logic, bin Laden may not in fact be living in the mountains
along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. For all we know, he could just
as easily be in Pakistan's Baluchistan province, another piece of
Pakistan outside the writ of Pakistan's government and NATO forces. Or
he could be in Somalia or, who knows, some remote island off
Indonesia.
The Administration's frankness is refreshing, but it suggests that we
should really start considering the possibility that bin Laden will
never be found. Sending 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan is
not going to put us any closer to finding bin Laden. If his security
is as good as it appears to be, even a door-to-door search of every
house in Pakistan's tribal regions would produce nothing.
Unless our luck changes, the best we should hope for from the Afghan
surge — and hope is about all we can be certain of — is that we manage
to drain the swamp and keep bin Laden holed up in the mountains or
wherever he is. But the question is, assuming we never find him, how
will we know when the Afghan swamp is drained?
Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's
intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most
recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1946099,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By With reporting by Bruce Crumley/ Paris Sunday, Dec. 11, 2005
At the time, the meeting hardly seemed notable--let alone the start of
the world's deadliest partnership. It was late in 1999, and Osama bin
Laden was sheltering in Afghanistan, already deep into his plot to
attack the World Trade Center. His visitor was a burly young
Jordanian, bruised and furious after spending six years inside his
country's worst prisons. Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi had traveled to
Afghanistan with a proposal for the al-Qaeda chief: he wanted to rally
Islam's "true believers" to rise up against corrupt regimes in the
Middle East. Bin Laden was skeptical. While al-Zarqawi advocated a war
on all fronts, bin Laden was fixated on attacking the U.S. and Israel.
He was unsure whether the abrasive, ambitious al-Zarqawi would make a
reliable lieutenant. But al-Zarqawi would not be dissuaded. According
to an account of the meeting by Saif al-Adel, a former member of bin
Laden's inner circle, that appeared on jihadist websites, al-Zarqawi
"doesn't retreat on anything ... He doesn't compromise."
So began an odyssey that would transform al-Zarqawi from a brawling
thug to the leader of the jihadist insurgency in Iraq, a man deemed so
threatening to U.S. security that he commands the same $25 million
bounty offered for bin Laden. By turning Iraq into a breeding ground
for al-Qaeda foot soldiers, al-Zarqawi has given new shape to an
organization that was fractured when the U.S., in retaliation for the
9/11 attacks, ousted the Taliban and sent bin Laden into hiding. And
as al-Zarqawi's stature has risen, his relationship with bin Laden has
apparently grown more complex and contentious, like that of an
apprentice who has eclipsed his master. At stake in their struggle for
control, say those who track the two men, is the future of the global
Islamic terrorist movement and its war with the U.S. and its allies.
In the four years since bin Laden disappeared during the siege of Tora
Bora, intelligence agencies around the world have struggled to glean
information about the whereabouts and inner workings of al-Qaeda's
high command. U.S. intelligence on al-Zarqawi, bin Laden and his
deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is not strong. But counterterrorism and
intelligence officials tell TIME they believe al-Zarqawi has expanded
his reach outside Iraq's borders to the extent that he has become al-
Qaeda's most dangerous operative. The U.S. believes al-Zarqawi has
contacted about two dozen other terrorist groups in more than 30
countries in Europe, Africa and Asia in an effort to raise funds for
his network and coordinate international operations. His network has
forged links with jihadist groups in Europe that may be planning
attacks similar to the London bombings last July. According to Arab
counterterrorism authorities, since his arrival in Iraq, al-Zarqawi
has been involved in attacks in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt,
Morocco and, most recently, the Nov. 9 triple-suicide bombing in
Jordan. And American counterterrorism officials are worried that al-
Zarqawi may also be reaching out to extremists hidden in the U.S.
"He's certainly trying to assume the mantle of bin Laden," says an
American intelligence analyst who has studied al-Zarqawi. "It may be
that bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's time has passed."
The two al-Qaeda leaders are certainly under pressure. In a statement
said to have been taped in September and aired by al-Jazeera last
week, al-Zawahiri claimed that al-Qaeda is "spreading, expanding and
strengthening" and that "bin Laden is still leading its jihad" against
the West. But intelligence officials say it's striking that bin Laden
himself has not issued a videotaped statement for more than a year--a
sign, U.S. intelligence believes, that while he is probably still
alive, he has been forced to go further underground to avoid
detection.
So, is bin Laden still in control? By tracing his relationship with al-
Zarqawi through a variety of sources--interrogation of captured
operatives, encrypted codes on jihadist websites, chains of messages
spanning from Iraq to Afghanistan--terrorism experts have assembled a
picture of the way bin Laden turned to his former acolyte to revive al-
Qaeda after the fall of the Taliban. It also reveals the ways in which
al-Zarqawi has steered al-Qaeda in directions his bosses probably
never intended or approved of--and why that makes the terrorist threat
more unpredictable, and perhaps more dangerous, than it was before
Sept. 11.
The pair's first purported meeting, in Afghanistan in 1999, provided
hints of their future rivalry. A senior Pakistani military officer who
once advised the Taliban's inner circle says, "Osama's camp was not
open to everyone. People like al-Zarqawi, who were temporary visitors,
were never trusted by him." According to the officer, Taliban leader
Mullah Mohammed Omar was warned by al-Qaeda not to be swayed by al-
Zarqawi's global war cry. The officer says, "Those around Mullah Omar
made it clear that the Taliban should avoid fighting in other people's
wars"--especially in gulf states where the Taliban and al-Qaeda had
plenty of wealthy backers.
But according to a biography of al-Zarqawi written by al-Adel (now
believed to be under detention in Iran), bin Laden thought it "unwise
to lose the chance of mobilizing al-Zarqawi and his companions in
those regions"--especially if al-Zarqawi, with his ties to Jordan's
militant underground, could help carry out an attack against Israel.
According to al-Adel's account, bin Laden instructed al-Zarqawi to set
up his own camp, far from bin Laden's activities, in the stony hills
behind Herat, near Afghanistan's western border with Iran. By 9/11, al-
Zarqawi was training several dozen fighters from Jordan, Syria,
Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq at his Herat camp. He and other jihadis
brought out their wives and children and formed an armed, Islamic
commune, with al-Zarqawi as self-anointed emir, or prince.
When U.S. forces attacked in October 2001, al-Zarqawi rallied with al-
Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Kandahar, the last bastion of the
militants. No match for the laser-guided bombs of U.S. warplanes, al-
Zarqawi and a select band of fighters fled westward into Iran and
eventually northern Iraq, where he had ties with the radical Islamic
group Ansar al-Islam. U.S. intelligence sources say they believe that
a few months after the U.S.'s March 2003 invasion of Iraq, bin Laden
dispatched a trusted aide, Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, to see about
organizing an al-Qaeda cell there. A former major in Saddam Hussein's
army, al-Iraqi seemed the perfect choice. But al-Zarqawi was
reportedly enraged that bin Laden had sent someone else as terrorist
ringmaster and apparently refused to cooperate with al-Iraqi. U.S.
intelligence officials can't confirm that account, but they do say bin
Laden's choice later returned to Afghanistan. Today, say the
officials, al-Iraqi acts as al-Qaeda's most lethal commander in
Afghanistan, employing tactics and bombmaking skills honed in Iraq and
shared over the Internet and by returning fighters.
By the time of the al-Iraqi mission, the organizational structure of
al-Qaeda had been revamped. In the wake of 9/11--according to a
classified report detailing elements of the U.S. interrogation of
former bin Laden aide Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the contents of which were
confirmed to TIME by a senior French counterterrorism official--al-
Qaeda leaders delegated day-to-day authority over the group's global
network to a "management committee" of five operatives, including al-
Libbi. From that point on, only attacks on the U.S. homeland required
approval from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. The high command's decision
to devolve authority empowered operatives like al-Zarqawi. In February
2004, U.S. authorities in Baghdad intercepted a letter believed to be
from al-Zarqawi to al-Zawahiri in which the Jordanian laid out his
plan to provoke Iraq's Shi'ites into a civil war with the Sunnis, one
that would draw in Salafi Sunni extremists from across the Islamic
world. Arab intelligence sources tell TIME that al-Zarqawi's
incendiary aim may have had bin Laden's backing. The sources say that
in a letter found in the possession of Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani
operative arrested in Iraq in January 2004, bin Laden urged al-Zarqawi
to "use the Shi'ite card"--to launch attacks on Shi'ite targets in
Iraq--as a way of pressuring Iran to free a number of top al-Qaeda
leaders, including bin Laden's son Saad, who fled to Iran from
Afghanistan in December 2001.
In October 2004, after further meetings with bin Laden's emissary al-
Iraqi, al-Zarqawi publicly joined al-Qaeda, becoming the self-
proclaimed prince of its operations in the "Land of Mesopotamia." As
the jihadist insurgency gained momentum, the open wariness that once
characterized al-Zarqawi's dealings with bin Laden dissipated,
although counterterrorism officials believe their alliance was rooted
more in pragmatism than affection. "Al-Zarqawi needs bin Laden for his
credibility," says a U.S. intelligence analyst. "Bin Laden needs al-
Zarqawi because he is doing the real work." But the celebrity al-
Zarqawi has gained through his reign of terror in Iraq has
marginalized bin Laden and shrunk his circle of loyalists. A senior
Pakistani intelligence officer says "several hundred" al-Qaeda
jihadis, spurred by al-Zarqawi's attacks on U.S. troops, left
Afghanistan for Iraq in two waves, one via the gulf and the other
across the Iran-Turkmenistan border; scores were killed in Iraq, and
many fell in the battle of Fallujah in November 2004.
Terrorism experts say bin Laden remains the spiritual leader of global
jihad but is no longer calling the shots. "Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri
may have turned al-Zarqawi into something bigger than themselves,"
says French counterterrorism expert Roland Jacquard. "Strategically,
they didn't have much choice. They needed to give the Iraq jihad the
backing and legitimacy of al-Qaeda's direction. But it's turned out to
be a very emancipating development for al-Zarqawi." Evidence
suggests,though, that he may have gone too far. In October the U.S.
released a letter that it said was sent in July from al-Zawahiri to al-
Zarqawi--in which bin Laden's deputy urged the Jordanian to refrain
from attacking Shi'ites in Iraq. It has provoked the anger of moderate
Muslims around the world. Al-Zawahiri suggests such attacks "be put
off until the force of the mujahid movement in Iraq gets stronger."
Although some experts speculate that the letter was drawn up by
Iranian intelligence to dupe al-Zarqawi, the CIA and Pentagon insist
that the 13-page missive is not a forgery and that it reveals
differences between the old al-Qaeda leaders and al-Zarqawi over
tactics and ideology. At the same time, the letter also indicates an
acknowledgment by al-Zawahiri that the al-Qaeda hierarchy has been
reordered. "It wasn't the letter of an overall commander pulling the
choke chain of a subordinate," says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert
with the Rand Corp. think tank in Washington, who believes it is
genuine. "It was diplomatic, cajoling, flattering and in essence
sucking up to [al-Zarqawi]."
What does that mean for the future of al-Qaeda? Intelligence officials
generally believe that al-Zarqawi has surpassed bin Laden as an
inspirational figure for budding jihadis. "People have forgotten about
bin Laden because they don't hear about him anymore," says an Arab
intelligence source. Al-Zarqawi's twin challenges will be to survive
divisions within the Iraqi insurgency as well as the U.S. military's
hunt for him. The Pentagon believes its commandos have come close to
capturing him several times. If al-Zarqawi manages to survive, he may
try to attain bin Laden's global reach. He has reportedly outlined to
his associates a strategy that calls for the overthrow of moderate
Arab governments and the establishment of a pure Islamic state in the
region in the next decade, with the ultimate goal of launching a world
war against nonbelievers.
For now, although al-Zarqawi has ties to jihadist groups across
Europe, they don't necessarily take orders from him, counterterrorism
officials say. But over the long term, his efforts in Iraq position
him to become the voice and inspiration for disaffected Muslims around
the world. "More and more people are veering into Islamic extremism
and embracing the Iraqi cause ... all converging on al-Zarqawi's
struggle," says a senior French counterterrorism official. "To our
great distress, he's doing just fine without ever turning his
attention from Iraq." As long as that's true, al-Zarqawi will be at
the forefront of the war against the West that his old boss started.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139841,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar
bademiyansubhanallah
Afghanistan's way forward must include the Taliban
Ordinary Afghans are entwined in the movement, choosing daily whether
to join the fighters or join the move toward democracy. The Obama
administration is right to open the door to dialogue.
By Azeem Ibrahim
December 8, 2009 | 5:49 p.m.
President Obama, in spelling out the new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan
this month, said that the United States will countenance dialogue with
some elements of the Taliban: "We will support efforts by the Afghan
government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and
respect the human rights of their fellow citizens."
But "opening the door" should in practice mean allowing moderate
elements of the Taliban to share power in a democratic Afghan system.
This is not as startling as it might seem, and it is vital to
understand why it is so important. First, many Taliban fighters are
simply peripheral Taliban militants. They joined the Taliban as a
pragmatic opportunity for advancement in a country where most power
comes from conservative Islam or guns. They typically fight close to
the village where they live and grew up, and so lack the mobility of a
true militia. Only a minority are "core" Taliban, such as Mullah
Mohammed Omar and the conservative junta that took power in
Afghanistan in 1996.
It is also important to know that most Taliban, unlike Al Qaeda, are
indigenous Afghans and are not likely to leave the country. In this
respect (and only in this respect), trying to rid Afghanistan of the
Taliban by military means would be like a foreign country trying to
rid the U.S. of Ku Klux Klan supporters by military means. Reporter
Jason Burke of the Observer of London has described how, when he asks
village locals who members of the Taliban are, a common response is
bemused surprise and the answer "men from my village."
So, while it is clear that success in Afghanistan will depend on the
support -- active or passive -- of ordinary Afghans, the same is true
of the Afghan Taliban. It is ordinary Afghans who, daily, choose to
get involved in the Taliban insurgency, or in NATO-supported projects
such as the new local guardian force operating in Wardak province, the
fledgling national army or local or national democracy.
By including this reality in his strategic assessment to Obama, Army
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in
Afghanistan, acknowledged that looking at the war in simplistic
Manichaean terms -- save as many good guys as possible while taking
out as many bad guys as possible -- was a mistake. The "good guys" and
the "bad guys" are often the same people. Rather, the U.S. and NATO
must maximize Afghans' incentive to participate in civil society and
minimize their incentive to fight.
There is little the alliance can do to minimize the incentive to
fight, especially for those Afghans motivated by the mere presence in
their country of Western, non-Muslim forces or by skewed
interpretations of a rural, conservative brand of Islam. But there are
things it can do to maximize the incentive to participate.
The fact that many of the Taliban are both peripheral and indigenous
means that if Afghanistan is to ultimately build a participative
political process, moderate members of the Taliban will have to be
included.
The pros of this approach outbalance the cons.
Critics will say that it will bring some unpalatable results. The
Taliban's often brutal form of conservative justice shocks the liberal
sensibilities of the Western nations paying for the war. Bringing
these people into the political process will mean conceding that
Western troops are not the right means to change some customs and
attitudes -- for example, when older men wed very young girls.
But we already are getting such unpalatable results. President Hamid
Karzai has made these kinds of concessions to bolster his legitimacy.
Witness the law passed before the Afghan election this summer allowing
Shiite men to deny their wives sustenance if they do not satisfy their
husbands, and that requires women to get permission from their
husbands to work. This law helped to shore up his power but did not
substantially neutralize the Taliban's desire to fight by bringing it
into the political process.
But on the plus side, bringing the Taliban into the political process
will mean setting up a thorough participative process. One of the many
problems with the presidential election was that traditional power
brokers such as warlords had such a central role in ensuring support
for the candidates. For example, the government paid insurgent leaders
not to attack voters or polling stations, according to the head of
Afghanistan's intelligence service, Amrullah Saleh.
Nobody expected an advanced democratic process. But we can reasonably
expect that next time, votes will be a better, truer representation of
the people's wishes and not just "bought." This will require
negotiating with some of the people who have been fighting the NATO
alliance, so that the differences over how Afghanistan is governed be
expressed in debate rather than merely fought over.
It will not be easy, but participation is the first step toward a self-
sustaining process. And that is essential to boosting the legitimacy
of the Afghan government and to get the nation to the point at which
the alliance can begin bringing its soldiers home.
Azeem Ibrahim is a research scholar at the International Security
Program at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, a World Fellow at Yale University and chairman
of a financial corporation.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ibrahim9-2009dec09,0,588847.story
Sid Harth
Raise aimed at competing with recruiting by insurgents
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 1:49 PM
KABUL -- A recent pay increase for Afghan soldiers and police appears
to have resulted in a surge of new applicants, the top U.S. military
official for Afghan security training said.
Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, citing Afghan statistics, said 2,659
Afghans had applied to join the security forces in the first seven
days of this month, about half of the month's recruiting objective. In
the three previous months, recruiting fell short of targets, with only
830 applicants in September, he said.
President Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan, which calls for 30,000
U.S. reinforcements next year, depends heavily on rapidly growing a
well-trained Afghan force that can begin to take over security from
U.S. and NATO forces. Afghanistan has about 97,000 security forces and
95,000 police officers, but they are poorly trained, have rapid
turnover and are subject to corruption.
Caldwell said that before the pay increase, projections suggested the
combined forces would reach 216,000 in July 2011 -- when Obama said he
wants to begin reducing U.S. forces. Caldwell said the goal under the
new strategy is to boost that figure by then to 282,000, a 50 percent
increase over current levels.
"It's clearly a challenge to get to that number, but that's a goal
we're setting for ourselves," he told reporters traveling with Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. "Realistically, we think we'll be between
250,000 and 280,000."
A key issue in growing the Afghan force is making sure it achieves a
balance of ethnic groups that better reflects the country's make-up.
Currently, for instance, Tajiks make up 27 percent of the population
but account for 41 percent of the officers, he said.
Under a pay increase announced about 10 days ago, the Afghan
government has significantly boosted base pay and added several levels
of combat pay, allowing it to better compete with the monthly payments
that the radical Islamist Taliban insurgency offers its recruits. In
Helmand province, for instance, an entry-level soldier making $180 a
month would now make $240 a month, according to Pentagon figures. In
Kunduz, pay would double from $120 to $240 a month. Police pay, which
previously lagged behind military salaries, was also raised closer to
parity with the Taliban.
By contrast, the Taliban is offering between $250 to $300 a month,
said Army Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, deputy commander of coalition
forces in Afghanistan. But that is a static number, he said, while
joining the Afghan army and police offers the prospect of promotions,
pay increases and a sense of national identity.
Caldwell said that in January, literacy classes in Dari and Pashtun,
Afghanistan's main languages, will be offered to increase the
attractiveness of joining the security forces. About 65 percent of
Afghan recruits are classified as illiterate, he said.
Much of the cost of training and paying Afghan forces is borne by the
United States and other nations, with a nominal percentage contributed
by the Afghan government. An Afghan soldier costs about $25,000 a year
to train, equip and maintain, compared with $100,000 for a U.S.
soldier, according to Caldwell's staff.
Meanwhile, Rodriguez said a NATO-led attack Tuesday in the eastern
province of Laghman "possibly" resulted in civilian deaths. "In the
confusion, there was obviously a firefight, and we are investigating,"
he said. Afghan forces participated in the attack, he said.
U.S. officials say reducing civilian casualties is essential to the
success of the new strategy.
About 400 students demonstrated in Jalalabad on Wednesday to protest
the reported civilian deaths , shouting "Death to America," according
to reports from the city in eastern Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120901900.html?hpid=topnews
Sid Harth
First Posted: 12- 9-09 11:10 AM | Updated: 12- 9-09 11:54 AM
During yesterday's hearings before the House and Senate Armed Service
Committees, General Stanley McChrystal and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry
presented a unified front, defending the escalation strategy outlined
by the Obama administration. They projected confidence that the 18
months ahead will yield the sort of significant results to make the
Afghan people "the winning team," as McCrystal put it. "I absolutely
believe that we -- and I mean the government of Afghanistan with
coalition help -- can defeat the Taliban," McChrystal said.
Your best source for a one-stop shop (or, two-stop shop, as it were),
comes via the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman, who drew out
tons of detail from both the House hearing and the Senate hearing.
Needing to catch up on the Senate hearings last night, I found these
link-rich highlight reels to be top-flight resources.
Here are some key highlights:
McChrystal Hearts Obama: Well, seeing as he got precisely what he
wanted, it stands to reason that McChrystal would praise the
president's "clarity, commitment and resolve." But as I noted
yesterday, that didn't stop various Republican Congresspersons from
trying to bait McChrystal into a division. Representative Buck McKeon
was at it early, concern-trolling on troop levels, but McChrystal
maintained that the mission has been properly resourced, saying, "I
believe that the president's decision reflects resourcing, resources
that do, that are congruent with what I recommended we needed. So I'm
very comfortable with the outcome resource-wise of what was made in
the process."
Over at TAPPED, Adam Serwer notes, "The belief that McChrystal could
be leveraged against Obama has its origins in his widely-
misinterpreted appearance in London a few months ago." So, what about
that?
McChrystal Is Sorry About London: Pressed on this matter by Senator
Jim Webb (D-Va.), McChrystal explained, "The discussion in London ...
there was no intention on my part to influence or in any way
negatively impact the decision-making process. I regret if there's any
impression that it did but there was absolutely no intent on my part
to do that."
Got To Pay The Cost To Be The Boss: One interesting revelation that
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) teased out of the hearings was the
news that coalition forces are not currently paying Afghan soldiers a
competitive wage, compared to the compensation being offered by the
Taliban. Ackerman called this "a glaring, flashing red light of a
problem". Matt Yglesias noted that this should raise a bunch of
broader questions:
At the same time, this highlights a lot of lingering issues about the
cost-effectiveness of our approach. Why are we spending a multiple of
Afghanistan's total GDP on fighting a war in the country? Couldn't
more be done, for cheaper, with cash for bribes and development? How
is it that it doesn't take the Taliban years to train competent
soldiers?
John McCain Has An Issue: Senator McCain (R-Ariz) has been a-grouse
all week over the planned July 2011 "inflection point," insisting that
"the fundamental problem remains: we've announced a date divorced from
conditions on the ground when we will start to withdraw our troops."
Of course, McChrystal, along with the rest of the administration,
doesn't see it that way, especially the whole "divorced from
conditions" part. Prior to tangling with McCain, the general averred
that "the guarantee that we the coalition, will support them but not
stay too long is actually a positive as well."
No Mention Of "Dwell Time": Unless I missed it in the transcript, none
of yesterday's interlocutors made any significant inquiries on the
issue of "dwell time." The matter may be taken up today, but if it
isn't, I'd expect this issue to diminish in media coverage of the
escalation.
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding hearings with
Eikenberry and General David Petraeus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/mcchrystal-coalition-forc_n_385579.html
bademiyansubhanallah
. On The Left
Escalating War Wrong Choice In Afghanistan
By EUGENE ROBINSON
Posted 12/03/2009 06:53 PM ET
President Obama should have declared victory in Afghanistan and begun
a withdrawal. His escalation of the war may achieve its goals, but at
too great a cost — and without making our nation meaningfully safer
from the threat of terrorist attacks.
I hope I'm wrong. But my fundamental question about Obama's approach
was illustrated Thursday by events far from the war zone: In
Mogadishu, Somalia, a suicide bomber infiltrated a university
graduation ceremony and killed at least 19 people, including three
ministers of the Somali government.
I use the term "Somali government" ironically, because there hasn't
really been one since 1991. A long-running, multisided battle for
control among heavily armed clans and warlords remains unresolved.
The most important recent development in the civil war has been the
emergence of a religious-based insurgency, al-Shabab, which now
controls a large swath of the country — and which was immediately
suspected in Thursday's bombing.
Where have we seen this movie before?
No, Somalia isn't a carbon copy of Afghanistan. But it shares the
distinction of being a failed state where the ideology of violent,
fundamentalist Islam has taken hold and the technique of suicide
"martyrdom" attacks is proving effective.
I doubt that Obama's "extended surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops
will be successful on its own terms, but let's assume that it is.
According to senior White House officials, this would mean that U.S.
and allied forces are able to "degrade" the Taliban to the point where
it poses no threat of taking power in Kabul and no longer controls
substantial areas of the countryside.
These benchmarks have to be met, the White House says, so that it's
impossible for al-Qaida to return to Afghanistan, establish a base of
operations and plan new attacks against the United States and other
targets.
My belief is that if the Taliban begins losing ground, many of its
fighters will just melt back into the population and bide their time
until the president's July 2011 deadline arrives.
At that point, will the Afghan military really be able to stand alone
against even a latent Taliban threat? If not, Obama's deadline will be
meaningless and U.S. forces will be stuck in Afghanistan, in large
numbers, for the foreseeable future.
But even if the surge works, why wouldn't al-Qaida — or some like-
minded group — simply set up shop in Somalia? Or in Yemen, another
failing state? Or in some other wretched corner of the world where
central government authority is weak and resentment of the West's
dominant power is high?
Afghanistan happened to be Osama bin Laden's choice for a
headquarters, but he and his top aides were driven out of the country
shortly after the U.S. invasion. Al-Qaida is believed to be based in
Pakistan now, with the freedom of movement of its leadership severely
restricted.
The Pakistani government's obvious reluctance to finish the job is
problematic, but I think it's likely that someday a missile from a
Predator drone will find its mark.
The problem is that al-Qaida's murderous philosophy, which is the real
enemy, has no physical base. It can erupt anywhere — even, perhaps, on
a heavily guarded U.S. Army post in the middle of Texas.
Look at what's necessary for the surge in Afghanistan to succeed:
President Hamid Karzai has to forswear corruption, which will require
more than a stern lecture from Obama.
The Afghan military not only has to be trained to fight, but also must
expand from its current strength of 92,000 soldiers to as many as
260,000 — a level that Karzai's weak, cash-strapped government could
scarcely afford.
And a nation known as the "graveyard of empires" for its legendary
resistance to foreign occupation would have to experience a sudden
change of heart.
In the end — even if conditions in July 2011 are such that Obama can
order a real withdrawal, not a token one — the larger threat of
terrorism will remain. The "drain the swamp" approach to fighting
terrorism doesn't work if the virulence can simply infect the next
swamp, and the next.
It never made sense to think of the fight against terrorism as a
"war," because it's not possible to defeat a technique or an idea by
force of arms. George W. Bush chose a path toward a more or less
permanent state of costly, deadly, low-level war. Barack Obama should
have taken a different course.
Comments Showing 1-5
Posted By: Tom in Michigan(410) on 12/4/2009 | 5:50 PM ET
Eugene has the same problem BHO does; he thinks because he says
something it's true but, his convoluted logic is supported by his
usual specious claims. Why is the elimination of all corruption
requisite? By this standard, Chicago would be a "failed
state" (risible at best that any Chicago-pol has the temerity to
demand this in the first place). Why 260k Afghan troops? If Eugene's
argument about the "graveyard of empires" is valid, our Afghan allies
are just as formidable as our Afghan enemies.
.Posted By: faroglobal(40) on 12/4/2009 | 5:05 PM ET
dip s**t
.Posted By: America is great(575) on 12/4/2009 | 4:30 PM ET
MR.E.R/MR.H.O/ WHO IS WHO HERE.? ImpeachObamaCampaign.com is a project
of the Policy Issues Institute.
.Posted By: Judith from Michigan(385) on 12/4/2009 | 2:57 PM ET
Mr. R, I'm sure the Pentagon is begging for your military expertise
and knowledge of terrorists. Anyway, my concern is, when will Mr. O
also order the deployment of 30,000 lawyers to accompany each soldier
on the battlefield? Also, can he send same amount of journalists to
record every soldier's movement to be used in a court of law? Would
you please volunteer?
.Posted By: elefante44(430) on 12/4/2009 | 2:27 PM ET
Why 30,000? Why not 40,000? Politics! Our first Marxist Mulatto POTUS
showed he needed to do what would help him, not us, US, or the troops
in harm's way.
http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/postfr.jsp?agent=blog
bademiyansubhanallah
McChrystal, U.S. envoy testify on Hill about new Obama strategy
By Greg Jaffe and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The U.S. general in charge of the Afghanistan war assured lawmakers
Tuesday that an additional 30,000 troops, combined with changes in the
overall war strategy, would trigger a demonstrable change on the
ground before U.S. forces start to come home in 18 months.
"By the summer of 2011, it will be clear to the Afghan people that the
insurgency will not win, giving them the chance to side with their
government," Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said.
Despite such assurances, members of the House and Senate armed
services committees used the appearance Tuesday by McChrystal -- as
well as the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry -- to
press for answers on what would happen in July 2011, when the 30,000
forces that President Obama recently committed to sending to
Afghanistan are to begin their gradual pullout.
Republicans, in particular, maintained that by setting a firm date to
begin withdrawal, the administration could send the wrong signal to
the Afghan people, who are wary of throwing their support behind a
teetering Kabul government and a U.S. security force that they fear
will eventually leave the country.
"What would you say to Afghans, Pakistanis and others in the region
who may not feel like hedging their bets or sitting on the fence
because they doubt America's commitment and resolve?" Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) asked.
Republicans and Democrats also probed for signs of rancor between
McChrystal, who sent out urgent calls for additional troops, and
Eikenberry, who expressed reservations about the timing and size of
the escalation in two classified cables to Washington in early
November.
Even before he was asked by lawmakers, Eikenberry sought to knock down
rumors of tension in the U.S. command team in Kabul. "I want to say
from the outset that General McChrystal and I are united in a joint
effort where civilian and military personnel work together every day,"
he said. He also said he fully backed the president's decision to send
in more soldiers and Marines to reverse the deteriorating security
situation in the country.
Security responsibilities
Meanwhile, some Democrats, including Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.),
leaned on McChrystal and Eikenberry to speed the development of the
Afghan army and police forces so that U.S. troops might be able to
reduce their numbers even faster in areas of the country that are more
stable.
Current plans call for an Afghan army of about 170,000 by July 2011;
at present, there are about 95,000 Afghan soldiers. Military officials
say that as few as 52,000 soldiers regularly show up for work, because
of poor pay and other reasons. In recent weeks, the military has
boosted the troops' pay so that they make as much as or more than
Taliban fighters do.
In Kabul, questions about when the Afghan army and police forces would
be able to take over primary security responsibilities also dominated
a news conference between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Afghan
President Hamid Karzai. Karzai cautioned that the Afghan government
would not be able to bankroll its security forces for at least 15 to
20 years. As a visibly uncomfortable Gates stood next to him, the
Afghan president added that with "maximum effort," Afghanistan
"hopefully" could take responsibility for security in the entire
country within five years.
Both Gates and McChrystal sought to send a clear message to Afghan
leaders that the U.S. commitment to fighting the Taliban and
rebuilding the country was not open-ended. At the same time, they
vowed that the U.S. partnership with the Afghan government and other
countries in the region would not be fleeting.
"Our government will not again turn our back on this country or this
region," Gates said. "We will fight by your side until the Afghan
forces are strong enough to secure the nation on their own."
Issue of corruption
Video
McChrystal: no 'silver bullets' for success in Afghanistan
The general in charge of the war in Afghanistan told lawmakers on
Capitol Hill that there are "no silver bullets" for success. But that
he expects to know by this time next year whether the troop build up
is reversing the Taliban's momentum
» LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER
Senior military officials are confident, based on recent operations in
southern Afghanistan, that the large influx of U.S. troops over the
next year will drive the Taliban out of havens, making it harder for
the insurgents to operate. But Eikenberry and McChrystal cautioned
that success in Afghanistan would depend on the willingness of the
Karzai government to stamp out endemic corruption and of Pakistan to
continue fighting insurgents on its side of the border.
Eikenberry was especially blunt about the risks associated with the
new strategy. "In spite of everything we do, Afghanistan may struggle
to take over the essential task of governance and security on a timely
basis," he said.
U.S. officials will be closely scrutinizing Karzai's selections for
his new cabinet, which he said he would announce this weekend. He is
being squeezed between the United States, which has demanded that he
stamp out corruption, and regional strongmen, who seek payback for his
reelection.
U.S. officials have said they will divert aid money from ministries
run by individuals deemed unqualified for their jobs. But Karzai faces
a dilemma, analysts say, because he has promised top posts to former
militia commanders who offered him critical support in the run-up to
the Aug. 20 election. Haroun Mir, director of Afghanistan's Center for
Research and Policy Studies, said he doubts Karzai will have the will
to resist selecting ministers based on their perceived power, rather
than their merit.
"I don't see how the international community will succeed in
pressuring him to change," Mir said. "There is no political will to go
after corruption."
Kessler reported from Kabul. Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington
contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120801735.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 10, 2009
OSLO -- President Obama departed Wednesday night for this Scandinavian
city, where he will accept the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize just over a week
after announcing plans to deploy 30,000 additional U.S. troops to
Afghanistan.
Obama is to receive the award Thursday during a solemn ceremony at
Oslo City Hall. Afterward, aides said, the president will deliver a
speech that confronts the seeming paradox of receiving the prestigious
peace prize while serving as a war president.
"He will address at the very beginning of his speech being a president
involved in two wars accepting an award for peace," press secretary
Robert Gibbs said in an interview.
Aides said the president will also explain his duty to pursue both
security and peace -- goals that sometimes make war unavoidable.
Obama is expected to reiterate a point he made after the five-member
Norwegian Nobel Committee stunned him and many others by selecting him
for the award less than nine months into his presidency: that he is
being recognized less for his achievements than for his aspirations.
"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just
been used to honor specific achievement," Obama told reporters hours
after winning the award Oct. 9. "It's also been used as a means to
give momentum to a set of causes."
Aides said the president views the award -- which has gone in the past
to such luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Elie Wiesel --
as a call to action.
In choosing Obama, the Nobel committee cited his call for a world free
of nuclear weapons and his attempt to foster global cooperation, and
many analysts saw the move as a slap at the often unilateralist
foreign policy pursued by President George W. Bush.
The committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian parliament, said
Obama has "created a new climate in international politics." The group
"in particular looked at Obama's vision and work toward a world
without atomic weapons," committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said.
As he has traveled the globe, Obama has emphasized the need for
leaders to show mutual respect while pursuing mutual interests. That
approach has proved popular in many parts of the world, with
international public opinion polls suggesting renewed admiration for
the United States.
But it remains to be seen whether the president's overtures will yield
tangible results.
Since taking office, Obama has tried to engage North Korea and Iran in
a bid to stop their nuclear programs, called for stronger protocols to
limit nuclear proliferation and pushed for an agreement to combat
global warming. He has also tried to coax the Israelis and
Palestinians into a new round of peace talks. None of those goals has
been met.
Meanwhile, critics have accused Obama of being naive and of
apologizing for the United States' leading role on the world stage.
In addition to presiding over two wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan,
Obama has significantly stepped up missile strikes on terrorist
targets in Pakistan, according to news reports -- all of which
complicates his message as he prepares to receive the world's most
prestigious peace prize.
"It would be a mistake for him to suggest in his speech that there is
some contradiction between waging war and seeking peace," said William
A. Galston, a Clinton administration official who is now at the
Brookings Institution. "I don't think he can or should downplay the
decision he has recently made with regard to Afghanistan. I think he
should emphasize the fact that there are many paths to peace,
depending on situations and circumstances."
After traveling here overnight, the president and first lady Michelle
Obama will meet with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg before
meeting with King Harald V and Queen Sonja.
Afterward, he will receive his award before an audience of about
1,000. At the ceremony, he will be awarded a diploma and a gold medal
bearing the visage of Alfred Nobel, the wealthy chemist and inventor
of dynamite who endowed the prize more than a century ago.
Later, the president will watch a torchlight parade in his honor from
a downtown hotel before attending the Nobel banquet Thursday evening.
The prize carries a $1.4 million cash award that the White House has
said Obama will donate to charity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904133.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Commentary by Margaret Carlson
Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- No more calls. We have a winner. All hail
General Stanley McChrystal, who has won his war for 30,000 more troops
to be deployed to a country whose government is so rotten and corrupt
many of its citizens prefer the Taliban.
Marching triumphantly to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, then giving network
interviews and long sit-downs with Charlie Rose and Christiane
Amanpour, McChrystal showed himself, as much as anyone, to be the
decider of our foreign policy. The U.S. war on terror will now be
centered in Afghanistan.
Don’t mistake this for a surge. It’s an escalation. In a blizzard of
clarifying statements from Obama administration officials, the
purported July 2011 drawdown date for the reinforcements was rendered
inoperable almost as soon as it was uttered.
Common sense says the deadline was a feint to calm Democrats. You
don’t win the hearts and minds of Afghanis, as McChrystal wants to do,
in a lifetime, much less 18 months, or train an army of mostly
illiterate, tribal men in a country that exhausted the superior army
of the Soviet Union before the U.S. gave it a go.
Of all the issues Obama didn’t want on his desk, Afghanistan was the
hardest, even without the military hemming him in. McChrystal fought
in memos, fought through leaks, fought in the trenches, as much with
political arts as martial ones.
For a while it looked like McChrystal was being outmaneuvered by Vice
President Joe Biden. Biden argued that Afghanistan had changed from a
just war to a senseless one because al-Qaeda has mostly moved
elsewhere, that the citizenry rightfully hated the corrupt and
dysfunctional government, and that drones and special forces on the
Afghan border with Pakistan could do the job.
Fighting Back
McChrystal and anonymous “military officials” fought back. Dramatic
excerpts from a classified memo to the president appeared. “Inadequate
resources,” the memo from McChrystal warned, “will likely result in
failure.”
His warning echoed the frequent predictions of doom from former Vice
President Dick Cheney, who insisted that Obama’s failure to grasp that
we are “at war” and his “dithering” invited renewed terrorist
activity.
When General Douglas MacArthur disagreed with stopping at the 38th
parallel in North Korea, President Harry Trumanfired him. If MacArthur
had had McChrystal’s savvy, he might have gotten his way.
Generals used to be unsuited for prime time: too gruff, too candid,
too unpolished. Now most are tanned, rested and ready for their
closeup, with P.R. as good as Tiger Woods before the recent troubles.
Flatter Me
In October, McChrystal let a reporter accompany him to Helmand
province and got a long, flattering profile in the New York Times
magazine out of it. On the cover, a Patton-like photo. Inside, the
story of a man who “pushes himself mercilessly, sleeping four or five
hours a night” and subsists on one meal a day. Jumping from a whirring
Black Hawk helicopter, he paraded through an outpost in the south
without helmet or flak jacket to show how more troops on the ground
can calm the populace. That’s a lot of ramrod-straight bravado to
match.
Democratic presidents are fearful of reviving the charge that they are
soft on national security and defer to the military brass. As
Representative John Conyers, a Democrat highly critical of Obama’s
build-up, put it, “Calling in generals and admirals to discuss troop
strength is like me taking my youngest to McDonald’s to ask if he
likes French fries.”
Obama’s Ambivalence
Obama’s nationally televised speech revealed his ambivalence by
granting McChrystal what he wanted -- 30,000 U.S. troops, plus maybe
10,000 from a coalition of the willing -- but only for a little
while.
Testifying in Congress, McChrystal hedged that double message. He
placated restive Democrats with the suggestion that the deployment
would end on a date certain, while signaling to Republicans that
Obama’s commitment was more open-ended.
Meantime, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was telling reporters
that it would be at least five years before Afghan security forces
would be capable of standing up so we could stand down. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, in a surprise trip to the region, said it
could be as long as four years before any of the surge troops come
home.
In a blunder, Gates said what not even the most hawkish say: “We are
in this thing to win.” Send Gates -- never tan, rarely quotable -- to
the same media training that’s made generals the envy of Britney
Spears.
Civilian Leadership
Generals should have their say, but not necessarily their way, in the
Oval Office. It’s all too easy to lose sight of the constitutional
principle that military commanders are subordinate to civilian
leadership when a confident general with good press says we will all
be dead if we don’t listen to him.
During his deliberations, Obama was cast as indecisive and overly
sensitive to politics, while McChrystal was seen as resolute,
concerned not about his popularity but about his country. Less
prominent were the facts that during McCrystal’s command, Osama bin
Laden has remained at large and the lie was perpetrated that Corporal
Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire, not accidental friendly fire.
It would be heartening to think Obama did the hard thing on
Afghanistan not because his hand-picked general intimidated him, but
because he became convinced that catastrophe would ensue if he failed
to send more American troops.
(Margaret Carlson, author of “Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and
I Made It to the White House” and former White House correspondent for
Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed
are her own.)
Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the
editor.
To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington
at mcar...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 9, 2009 21:00 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a19a5MtkK08Y
chhotemianinshallah
Followed by about 500 men, they demand that the government purge
anyone connected to the Taliban, war crimes or corruption. Many hold
pictures of slain relatives.
Several hundred women, many carrying pictures of relatives they said
were killed by Taliban militants or drug lords, took to the streets of
Kabul to demand that President Hamid Karzai purge from his government
anyone connected to the killing of Afghans. (Tony Perry / Los Angeles
Times / December 10, 2009)
By Tony Perry
December 10, 2009 | 1:04 a.m.
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - Several hundred women, many
holding aloft pictures of relatives killed by drug lords or Taliban
militants, held a loud but nonviolent street protest today, demanding
that President Hamid Karzai purge from his government anyone connected
to corruption, war crimes or the Taliban.
"These women are being very brave," said the protest leader, her face
hidden by a burka. "To be a woman in Afghanistan and an activist can
mean death. We want justice for our loved ones!"
Afghan police, in riot gear, monitored the rally as it worked its way
slowly through muddy streets to the United Nations building here, but
they did nothing to disrupt the event.
The unusual display of political activism by women comes as Karzai is
under increasing pressure to remove from his cabinet anyone connected
to rampant corruption, including links to the flourishing drug trade.
His own finance minister says corruption is the biggest threat to the
future of Afghanistan.
Karzai, elected to a second term in a vote marred by ballot-stuffing,
had been expected to announce his selections for cabinet positions
this week but delayed his announcement until next week.
In a surprise visit to Kabul this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert
Gates said he hopes that Karzai appoints reformers.
Karzai declined to say who he will appoint but promised that his
selections will satisfy the Afghan public and the international
community.
The protest group, under the banner Social Assn. of Afghan Justice
Seekers, said that "our people have gone into a nightmare of
unbelieving" because of the disputed election and the fact that "the
culture of impunity" still exists despite Karzai's vow to eliminate
it.
While the women took the lead in the protest, about 500 men followed
them in support, an unusual display in Afghan culture of men allowing
women to take a leadership role.
The group spokeswoman, who gave her name as Lakifa, said many women
are still afraid to demand an accounting of the death or disappearance
of family members during the three decades of war that have ripped
Afghanistan.
"We need to know about all of our martyrs, and the government needs to
find the mass graves and the killers, not give them jobs and protect
them," she said.
Although it was not a major focus of the protest, the group was also
critical of President Obama's decision to send additional troops.
"The innocent and oppressed people will be the victims of American air
and ground attacks," said the group's statement handed to Afghan and
U.S. reporters.
Earlier this week, the Afghan Rights Monitor released a poll
suggesting that half of Afghans think of the Karzai government as
illegitimate because of the election fraud. The cabinet selections,
said the group's director, Ajmal Samadi, represent a "win or lose
time" for Karzai.
"Mr. Karzai must urgently implement transformational reforms in all
aspects of his government or accept grave consequences," Samadi said.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghanistan-protest11-2009dec11,0,320839.story
Sid Harth
Agencies
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 at 1937 hrs IST
Oslo Invoking his 'heroes' Mahatma Gandhi and legendary civil rights
leader Martin Luther King, US President Barack Obama received the 2009
Nobel Peace Prize vowing to achieve a peaceful world where "war is
sometimes necessary".
In his acceptance speech after receiving the Nobel Prize, the first
sitting US President to get the coveted prize in 90 years, Obama said:
"I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naïve, in the
creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I
cannot be guided by their (Gandhi and Dr King) examples alone. I face
the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to
the American people," the 48-year-old President said.
The president acknowledged that many people feel he has not done
enough to deserve the prize that he received in Oslo. He also noted
that he recently ordered another 30,000 US troops to fight in
Afghanistan.
People must accept "the hard truth" that violence cannot be eradicated
and nations sometimes must wage war to protect their citizens from
evil regime or terrorist groups.
He said a non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies
and negotiations cannot persuade al-Qaida's leaders to disarm.
"...part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly
irreconcilable truths, that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at
some level an expression of human feelings," the US President said.
Noting that terrorism has long been a tactic, Obama said modern
technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder
innocents on a horrific scale.
"Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars
within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the
growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states;
have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos," Obama said as
he pledged the USD 1.4 million prize to charity. In today’s wars, many
more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict
are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder,
refugees amassed, and children scarred," the President said.
Describing disarmament as a "centerpiece" of his foreign policy, Obama
said he was committed to upholding the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty and that he was working with Russian President Medvedev to
reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
"In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a
treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful
nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and
those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament," Obama said.
He is the third sitting US president to win the award after Theodore
Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Former US president
Jimmy Carter won the prize in 2002.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Obama-advocates-war-for-peace-theory-accepts-Nobel/552585/
bademiyansubhanallah
Policy Director of Just Foreign Policy
Posted: December 10, 2009 12:10 PM
Obama Invokes "Just War," But Is the War in Afghanistan "Just"?
"Accepting Peace Prize, Obama Evokes 'Just War,'" notes the headline
in the New York Times, referring to President Obama's speech accepting
the Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama did indeed invoke the concept
of a "just war." But tellingly, he did not try to argue that the U.S.
war in Afghanistan meets the criteria to be judged as a "just war."
A plausible explanation for the President's failure to argue that the
war in Afghanistan is a "just war" is that he recognizes that such an
argument would not be convincing.
As President Obama noted in his speech, there are criteria involved in
the "just war" concept. It isn't just a matter of proclaiming that a
war is justified. There are tests.
This matters, because a substantial part of the U.S. and world
population subscribes to the theory of "just war." In particular, more
than a fifth of the U.S. population are estimated to identify as
Catholics. The concept of "just war" - that wars can be considered
"just" only if they meet certain criteria - is an official doctrine of
the Catholic Church.
Here's part of what the official Catechism of the Catholic Church has
to say about this:
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of
human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all
war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so
that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the
avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no
international authority with the necessary competence and power,
governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once
all peace efforts have failed."
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force
require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes
it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of
nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. the power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the
prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common
good.
The U.S. war in Afghanistan does not meet these criteria, and that's
why it's not surprising that President Obama didn't try to argue that
it does.
According to the current statements of U.S. officials, the target of
the war and the current proposed escalation is not Al Qaeda -
estimated to have 100 or so fighters in Afghanistan - but the Afghan
Taliban insurgency, which, it is alleged, would shelter Al Qaeda if it
returned to power. "Success" is now defined by the Administration
fuzzily as "degrading" the Taliban.
- the "damage" inflicted by the difference between the power of the
Afghan Taliban today and the power the Afghan Taliban will have if it
is "degraded" by the U.S. "surge" is not "lasting, grave, and
certain." Even top officials of the U.S. government, according to
press reports of the Administration's review, do not believe that it
is inevitable that the Afghan Taliban would provide a "safe haven" to
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, even if the Afghan Taliban were to take
control of the entire country, an unlikely prospect (even prior to the
U.S. invasion in 2001, the Afghan Taliban did not control the entire
country.) And, as counter-terrorism expert Paul Pillar has noted, even
if Al Qaeda did re-establish a "safe haven" in Afghanistan, it would
not significantly increase the terrorist threat to the United States,
because such "safe havens" aren't that important to planning terrorist
attacks, and because Al Qaeda has ample recourse to such "safe havens"
elsewhere.
- all other means of putting an end to the "damage" - such as
political negotiations in Afghanistan and the region - have not been
shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- "serious prospects of success": now that the criterion for success
has been defined as only "degrading" the Taliban, perhaps there is a
serious prospect of success - that's the beauty of fuzzy goals - it's
hard to say that they can't be achieved. But it is critical to keep in
mind that it is this current much more modest official goal of
"degrading" the Taliban - not more ambitious but unachievable goals
such as "eliminating" Al Qaeda or the Taliban - which has to be
measured against the moral costs of the war. Since the United States
Government now officially concedes that the Taliban will be part of
Afghanistan's future no matter what the United States does, arguing
that it is a bad thing for the Afghan Taliban to continue to exist
cannot be part of a rational argument for continuing the war.
- the use of arms already has produced evils and disorders graver than
the evil to be eliminated, and will almost certainly continue to do
so. The difference to the world and to Afghanistan between whether the
Afghan Taliban have their present power or the power they will have
after being "degraded" cannot possibly justify the destruction of
American and Afghan lives that is the guaranteed consequence of
continuing and escalating the war.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Comments10
This speech is a wingnut's dream. How many times did we hear the same
from the Bushie administration, "We're a peace loving country," all
the while promoting an illegal war, not to mention, torture.
Posted 03:23 PM on 12/10/2009
- + nowpolitics I'm a Fan of nowpolitics I'm a fan of this user 6
fans
Until you come to terms with the fact that President Obama did not
start the war in Afghanistan, your portrayal of just war is lacking.
By the principles you expounded, it was a 'just war' when a group of
men destroyed the lives of over 3000 people in our land with the
associated financial ruin and we knew for a fact that they were
trained and have a bas in Afghanistan. That is the war that is still
being fought. We have not really concluded that, especially when their
purported leader, OBL is still not captured. (No, I am not advocating
that we continue until he is found but it is necessary to understand
how it all began).
President Obama was awarded a peace prize by the Nobel committee
without him actively seeking for it. He has done more in his short
presidency to start engagement with allies and enemies alike than most
of modern day presidents. He has taken bold steps where others dared
not thread.
If you can follow the Catholic doctrine you quoted above (section
2307), I will say go on and pray for the president to work harder in
bringing peace. That will be a better thing to do than castigating
him.
Posted 03:05 PM on 12/10/2009
- + Dupree I'm a Fan of Dupree I'm a fan of this user 216 fans
permalink
Part TWO
He changed the tone of the country in less than a year and a country
that was growing more and more despised by the global community now
has been elevated to first place as the most admired country in the
world...is no small feat. Obama ran his campaign last year with the
resolve to take on Afghanistan. Perhaps those that are whining now was
not listening or shut their ears to anything he said that is contrary
to what they want Obama to do.
But we who WERE listening is not surprise for his stand on Afghanistan
for it was a consistent theme of his addressing the "wrong" war and
made a distinction between the "just" war....we do still have in our
history books three thousands of our citizens were killed ....murder
ed brutally on our own soil in the Twin Buildings of New York...just
in case we have short term memory problems. Their deaths has yet to be
avenged for the hanging of Saddam Hussein did not address the fact
that an orchestrated attack on our soil took place and Bin Laden is
still at large and at peace while the descendants families members are
still feeling the lost of their rude interruption of life. I also live
in a real world with real problems.
cont.
Posted 02:17 PM on 12/10/2009
- + Dupree I'm a Fan of Dupree I'm a fan of this user 216 fans
Part ONE
I do not understand the need to attack Obama for a war he did not
preempted but inherited. It is not logical to take a position that we
simply just leave a foreign country without regards to the state of
which we leave it. It is too simplistic for those that have knee jerk
thoughts and reactions to life that defies the reality on the ground
in motion. Obama did not run for the Noble Peace Prize and was awarded
it graciously by those who are in charge of electing the individual
deemed most appropriate in their eyes...not ours. I happen to think
that one who is of African descent to run and actually WIN the highest
office in a country that began with the slavery of those of African
descent is a huge achievement within its own category of reference. I
happen to think that one who has inherited a country with huge massive
problems and an image around the world that was despised.....who has
been working tirelessly that there are those that criticize if he is
"doing too much" or "over-exposed" ...AND who has single handed change
the image of this country is a great achievement.
Posted 02:17 PM on 12/10/2009
- + davidly I'm a Fan of davidly I'm a fan of this user 19 fans
Is it fair then to attack innocent civilians who did nothing but
inherit the spot of earth upon which they were born?
Posted 02:57 PM on 12/10/2009
- + EightIsTooMuch I'm a Fan of EightIsTooMuch I'm a fan of this user
You are surprised he called the Afghan War just? If it is not, he
would not be sending more troops there
Posted 02:03 PM on 12/10/2009
- + LeeCalif I'm a Fan of LeeCalif I'm a fan of this user 74 fans
You are extremely naive. Ever hear of Vietnam ?
Posted 02:24 PM on 12/10/2009
- + luis sancho I'm a Fan of luis sancho I'm a fan of this user
Dr. Death, was the pseudonym in XIX c. press of Mr. Nobel, the
inventor of dynamite and chemical explosives that made him extremely
wealthy in the prussian and I World War. His only rival was Mr. Krupp,
who made grease with nazi prisoners for his cannons. But Nobel was
smarter. He set companies in all countries to sell weapons to each
contender. Uncle Fred also said about the Nobel Peace he instituted
not to loose his very young activist lover: 'my factories will make
peace earlier than all those congresses by inventing weapons that
annihilate entire nations in a second'. Right now all the wannabe
Nobels assembled at CERN have switched a quark cannon that will shoot
black holes to this planet, a Damocles Machine that menaces our very
own survival, called in the peaceful newspeak of the new era, an
instrument of research. You live in an Orwellian era in which all
words are the anti-truth of what they really mean. i suggest the next
for CERN if we are still here LOL Rhetoric can cheat every human on
Earth. What we CANNOT CHEAT are the laws of the Universe.
If Obama
really wants to stop nuclear proliferation I suggest he stops the
creation of mass bombs (M=E/c2) and the 'peaceful evolution' of black
holes, here on Earth. That would be a 'change we believe in' ... see
why earth is at danger at www.lhcdefence.org
Posted 01:52 PM on 12/10/2009
- + Countess I'm a Fan of Countess I'm a fan of this user 34 fans
Obama is moving to insure his popularity by embracing war which is
what most presidents do because the American public is easily fooled
with war rhetoric and has supported even worse wars than this.
Remember Vietnam which only became unpopular after it became obvious
it would end in defeat. Once it starts to sink in that the war in
Afghanistan will also end in defeat they will turn against it as well.
There is little opposition to military adventures and useless
slaughters as long as they are easy wins.
Posted 12:32 PM on 12/10/2009
- + fairwitness I'm a Fan of fairwitness I'm a fan of this user 34
fans
They should then award a "Just War Prize", and Obama would qualify.
For the "Peace Prize"...not so much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-invokes-just-war-bu_b_387231.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Agencies
Oslo, December 10, 2009
First Published: 23:22 IST(10/12/2009)
Last Updated: 02:01 IST(11/12/2009)
Turning down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway is evidently
not a good thing do to, even if you are Barack Obama.
According to The Guardian, the President of the United States arrived
in Oslo to receive his Nobel peace prize amid considerable anger over
the White House's decision to cancel a series of events normally
attended by the prizewinner – including lunch with King Harald.
The White House cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates
traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel
committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at
a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a
visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.
The Guardian website reported that Norwegians are incensed over what
they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his
visit.
The Norwegian Nobel committee, which awards the peace prize, dismissed
the criticism. "We always knew that there were too many events in the
programme. Obama has to govern the US and we were told early on that
he could not commit to all of them," said Geir Lundestad, secretary of
the committee.
Peace activists opposed to the Afghanistan war are planning a 5,000-
strong protest in Oslo.
The visit tests Obama's rhetorical skills as he sought to reconcile
acceptance of the Nobel peace prize with sending an extra 30,000 US
troops to Afghanistan.
chhotemianinshallah
Amit Roy
Stockholm, Dec. 10: Big questions of life and death were tackled today
when President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo
while Venkatraman Ramakrishnan accepted the Nobel Prize for chemistry
in Stockholm.
The two events were separated by only a few hours and yet there was a
link.
Referring twice to Mahatma Gandhi, Obama rose to the occasion,
addressed not only the assembled distinguished gathering but also
“citizens of the world” and insisted that in the midst of death life
must persist.
Ramakrishnan, meanwhile, who received his medal along with two other
Laureates in chemistry, three in physics, 3 in physiology, one in
literature and two in economics, was honoured for his research into
ribosomes – the complex proteins that turn inert DNA genetic codes
literally into “life”.
The work into ribosomes is considered the most profound since Crick
and Watson unravelled the double helix of the DNA.
In the audience at the concert hall in Stockholm was “Venki’s” sister,
Lalita Ramakrishnan, who caused a stir by wearing a green sari.
Over in Norway, Obama, with wife Michelle in a gold outfit, arrived by
motorcade at Oslo City Hall to a fanfare of trumpets. Seated at the
front were King Harald of Norway, Queen Sonja, Crown Prince Haakon and
his glamorous blonde wife, Mette-Marit.
It is estimated that tight security in Oslo cost, at least, 10 times
Obama’s Dollar1.4m prize money.
Keenly aware that many think that giving the peace prize to Obama so
early in his presidency was, at best, premature, the US president
tempered his justification for war with an appeal to the philosophy of
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr (who had also received the Nobel
Peace Prize).
“The non-violence practised by men like Gandhi and King may not have
been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that
they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the
North Star that guides us on our journey,” Obama urged.
Earlier, he had spoken of the power of non-violence: “We must begin by
acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent
conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting
individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only
necessary but morally justified.”
He went on: “I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King
said in this same ceremony years ago, ‘Violence never brings permanent
peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more
complicated ones.’ As someone who stands here as a direct consequence
of Dr King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of
non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing
naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.”
Obama was introduced by Thorbjørn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian
Nobel Committee, who gave a long speech defending the decision to
recognise Obama on October 9 “for his extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.
“The committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of
and work for a world free from nuclear weapons,” the citation had
added.
Jagland, a former Norwegian prime minister and foreign minister,
launched into a detailed analysis of the international situation:
“This year’s award must be viewed in the light of the prevailing
situation in the world.”
Jagland did Obama no favours by appearing to be almost a cheerleader
for a Democratic presidential contender.
He said others had received a peace award when their work had just
begun and was applauded when he compared Obama with King. “Many have
been awarded the Peace Prize for their courage, even when the results
for a long time seemed modest: Carl von Ossietzky, Andrej Sakharov,
Lech Walesa and the Dalai Lama, to name a few. When Albert Lutuli
received his Peace Prize, the struggle against apartheid was in its
infancy.”
“When Martin Luther King Jr received his award,” Jagland also said,
“he had proclaimed his dream that ‘my four little children will one
day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of
their skin but by the content of their character’, but there was still
a long way to go from dream to reality. Mr President, we are happy to
see that through your presence here so much of Dr King’s dream has
come true.”
Central to Jagland’s argument was the assertion: “The question was
actually quite simple. Who has done most for peace in the past year?
If the question is put in (Alfred) Nobel’s terms, the answer is
relatively easy to find: it had to be US President Barack Obama.”
In the days, months and probably years ago, Obama’s Nobel Prize
speech, which he had drafted himself with the help of his senior
advisers, will be analysed into what he said and what he might have
said but didn’t.
It will be recognised as one of his most compelling performances,
perhaps his best yet, for he tackled the fundamental questions of war
and peace and the apparent contradiction in a recipient of the peace
prize sending young men into battle.
“I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable
controversy that your generous decision has generated,” he told those
who had given him the prize.
“In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of
my labours on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of
history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall
and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. But perhaps the most
profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I
am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of
these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did
not seek,” he said.
He was candid: “Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the
deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant
land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an
acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult
questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort
to replace one with the other.”
He addressed the notion of a just war: “The concept of a ‘just war’
emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain
preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defence; if
the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians
are spared from violence.”
The organisations that had held the peace in the last century were now
being tested. “A decade into a new century, this old architecture is
buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer
shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but
proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long
been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with
outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.”
His solution?
“I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of
war,” he said. “What I do know is that meeting these challenges will
require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and
women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think
in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a
just peace.”
Again he was direct. “There will be times when nations — acting
individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only
necessary but morally justified.”
“Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in
binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct,” he argued. “And even
as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe
that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the
conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we
fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited
torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.
And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the
Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very
ideals that we fight to defend.”
There were reference to events such as Mumbai 26/11. “We see it in the
way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those
who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who
attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the
first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are
amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just
war.”
In Stockholm, Professor Mans Ehrenberg, a member of the Nobel
Committee for Chemistry, said that the prize was being given “for
studies of the structure and function of the ribosome”.
He said: “Venkatraman Ramakrishnan’s crystal structures of the small
ribosomal sub-unit in functional complexes led to atomic level
understanding of how ribosome assisted reading of the genetic code can
be so accurate that virtually all proteins are made error free in
accordance with the blueprints of their genes.”
Ramakrishnan and fellow winner Thomas Steitz, an American, looked
elegant in tails, while the third member of the group, Ada Yonath of
Israel, wore black.
Then came the critical moment as though the three were back at a
school prize giving with Ehrenberg saying: “Professors Ramakrishnan,
Steitz and Yonath, you are being awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
for the crystallographic determination of ribosome structures at high
resolution and for the skilful use of the structures to clarify
fundamental and medically important aspects of ribosome function. On
behalf of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, I wish to convey to
you our warmest congratulations and I now ask you to step forward to
receive your Nobel Prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
Ramakrishnan beamed as he was the first to step forward to shake hands
with King Carl Gustav of Sweden. He bowed twice as his sister was seen
applauding enthusiastically.
Ramakrishnan was followed by Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath.
The ceremony was followed by what the Nobel committee members like
best – an elaborate royal banquet.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091211/jsp/frontpage/story_11850761.jsp
bademiyansubhanallah
STAFF WRITER 21:7 HRS IST
Oslo, Dec 10 (AFP) The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
defended today the timing of US President Barack Obama's Peace Prize,
saying it seized the opportunity to support his ideas.
"Many have argued that the prize comes too early," chairman Thorbjoern
Jagland said at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo. "But history
can tell us a great deal about lost opportunities."
"It is now, today, that we have the opportunity to support President
Obama's ideas. This year's prize is indeed a call to action for all of
us," Jagland said.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, composed of five people appointed by
the Norwegian parliament, surprised the world when it announced Obama
as the laureate of the prestigious Peace Prize on October 9.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/417987_Committee-defends-timing-of-Obama-s-Peace-Prize
chhotemianinshallah
Drones have been used to target militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan
The CIA has cancelled a contract with US private security firm
Blackwater for its operatives to load bombs onto drone aircraft in
Pakistan and Afghanistan.
CIA Director Leon Panetta wanted such work to be done by the
organisation's own employees only, officials said.
The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret contract with
Blackwater, renamed Xe, in August.
On Thursday, the paper also reported that Xe employees had been
involved in "snatch-and-grab operations" in Iraq.
Xe, based in North Carolina, changed its name from Blackwater after
several of its employees were accused of killing 17 civilians in a
shooting incident in Baghdad in September 2007.
Four men are due to stand trial next year.
'Joint operations'
Earlier this year, Mr Panetta ordered a review of the company's
contacts to be sure its operatives were only performing security-
related work, intelligence officials said on Friday.
At this time, Blackwater is not involved in any CIA operations other
than in a security or support role
CIA spokesman George Little
Afterwards, a contract with Blackwater Select, a division which
handles classified operations, to load missiles onto CIA Predator
drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan was cancelled, they added.
A CIA spokesman, George Little, said Mr Panetta had since ordered that
the agency's employees take over the task.
"At this time, Blackwater is not involved in any CIA operations other
than in a security or support role," he told the New York Times.
The statement came a day after the paper quoted various unnamed
current and former Blackwater staff as saying that in Iraq between
2004 and 2006, colleagues were involved in raids on suspected
militants almost every night.
They said that, at one point, joint operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
became so routine that Blackwater personnel sometimes were partners in
missions instead of just providing security for CIA officers.
Former Blackwater employees also alleged that they provided security
on some CIA rendition flights transporting detainees between prisons
in different countries.
One former CIA officer was quoted as saying: "There was a feeling that
Blackwater eventually became an extension of the agency."
Xe has insisted it was "never under contract to participate in covert
raids with CIA or Special Operations personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan or
anywhere else".
"Any allegation to the contrary by any news organisation would be
false."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8409358.stm
chhotemianinshallah
Bitterness at Blackwater shootings
By Humphrey Hawksley
BBC News, Baghdad
More than a year on, relatives of those killed in the shooting remain
angry
The Iraqi government has welcomed the indictment in the US of five
guards working for private security firm Blackwater who opened fire at
a busy Baghdad intersection, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
A spokesman said Iraq welcomed any attempt to hold what he called
"criminals accountable for their crimes".
And the National Security Adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie said the 'party
is over' for the security contractors working in Iraq.
"From January there will be no immunity for these people. If they
violate the law, if they encroach on the local people, they will be
liable under Iraqi law."
Blackwater, which is responsible for the protection of hundreds of
American and other foreign officials in Iraq, says the guards' convoy
came under attack from insurgents.
Eye witnesses and family members maintain that the shooting was
unprovoked.
"I was driving. My sister was beside me in the car," said businessman
Mohammed al-Kinana, who lost his son in the tragedy.
Those men, they just kept shooting and shooting
Mohammed al-Kinana, who lost his nine-year-old son
"Her three children were in the back seat and my son was directly
behind me. My sister grabbed my head to pull me down. Those men, they
just kept shooting and shooting.
"They shot in all directions. At the trees. At the police hut. They
kept shooting at the first car until it burst into flames."
In that first car to reach the intersection were Mahasin and Ahmed al-
Rubaie, wife and son of Dr Haythem Ahmed al-Rubaie. Ahmed was shot,
then his mother died from gunfire while she was cradling her son in
her arms.
Dr Rubaie rejected a $10,000 (£6,660) compensation as an insult and
says he has not yet even received an apology.
"They killed my wife and son and all the other innocent people," he
said. "What have they done for them? Did they apologise? Can anybody
tell me when he sees his beloved wife and son - his head blown out
charred, black... for what reason?"
Seventeen-year-old Mohammed Osama lost his father in the shooting. He
believes the five guards being indicted should be executed. "They need
to get the harshest possible punishment," he said.
Forcing change
The issue of armed private security guards operating in Iraq remains
unresolved, mainly because they protect so many American and other
foreign officials working here.
Police in Nisour Square, in the upmarket Baghdad suburb where the
shooting happened, speak with disdain at the mention of Blackwater,
one saying that he is concerned for the lives of Iraqis while they
continue to be here.
While we are speaking a private security convoy passes. Drivers stay
fearfully back and a machine gun swings round to one car that strays
too close.
The tragedy, though, began to redefine the relationship between Iraq
and America.
It was a symbolic part of negotiations on when and how American forces
should leave Iraq and at the weekend the top military commander,
General Raymond Odierno, told his troops that all Iraqis must be
treated with "the utmost honour and dignity".
Dr Rubaie does not want the death penalty for the five Blackwater
guards, but he does want Americans to understand that they are not the
masters of Iraq.
"They think they are the master country. They say we are coming to
Iraq to teach them how to deal with human beings, how to treat
women...
"They killed my wife. They were seeing her and hearing her with my son
saying 'help me, help me' and they killed her."
The Blackwater killings is one tragic story from this long war, but
one that is forcing a direct change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7770826.stm
chhotemianinshallah
Blackwater incident: What happened
The shooting of Iraqi civilians in an incident involving US security
firm Blackwater has been the subject of several investigations.
Occupants of a white sedan died after the car came under fire
The Iraqi government has accused Blackwater security guards of killing
the civilians on the morning of 16 September 2007, while they were
escorting an American diplomatic envoy in Baghdad.
The company said the civilians were killed during a shootout after one
of their convoys came under attack in Nisoor Square, in an affluent
neighbourhood of the capital. They said the guards reacted lawfully to
gunfire deliberately aimed at them.
The Iraqi government, citing eyewitness reports, concluded that the
Blackwater guards fired on civilians without provocation.
The government, which has called for the Blackwater guards to face
prosecution, welcomed news that five guards had been indicted in the
US in December 2008.
Details of the charges are expected to be made public later on 8
December and the five men will surrender to federal authorities in
Utah, reports say.
Until now, US officials have released few details of the incident as
it has been the subject of an investigation by the FBI.
However, in November 2007, the New York Times quoted FBI officials as
saying that the killings of at least 14 Iraqi civilians had been
unjustified.
One of the most detailed accounts of the events according to
Blackwater employees comes from an initial report by the US embassy.
This was seen by the Washington Post at the end of September 2007.
Embassy report
It was described as a "spot report" and not intended to be
authoritative. It was dated the day of the attacks.
According to those accounts, Blackwater teams encountered a car bomb,
a shootout and a standoff between Blackwater guards and Iraqi security
forces. Each Blackwater team usually consists of three or four
armoured vehicles.
The report said the incident began when a car bomb exploded at 11.53
near a financial compound in Baghdad, while a US official was
visiting. It also said:
Two Blackwater teams transported the official back to the fortified
Green Zone
Another Blackwater unit was dispatched to the scene of the car bomb to
deal with the aftermath of the blast.
This unit, however, was then ambushed and "engaged with small arms
fire" from "multiple nearby locations" in Nisoor Square.
One of the Blackwater teams that had transported the official back to
the Green Zone was re-dispatched to help out in Nisoor Square.
The re-deployed unit found itself stuck at an intersection in Nisoor
Square and was confronted by Iraqi police and army. A US forces quick
reaction team was sent to help rescue the unit.
Separately, The Washington Post quoted a US official familiar with the
investigation as saying that at least one Blackwater guard drew a
weapon on his colleagues and shouted at him to "stop shooting".
The incident took place when Nisoor Square was busy with traffic
Accounts of what happened to the first Blackwater unit to enter Nisoor
Square have differed.
Iraqi eyewitnesses have said that guards moved into the roundabout
stopping the traffic. They then fired on a white sedan that had failed
to slow down. According to those accounts, the car burst into flames
killing the occupants. One eyewitness said Blackwater operatives had
fired a rocket or grenade into the car.
Those eyewitnesses say Blackwater guards then fired without
provocation into the surrounding area as civilians and Iraqi officers
tried to flee. They say the officers did not return the fire.
Also in September 2007, an ABC news report quoted what it said were
sworn statements from Blackwater employees. A number of those said
that they had fired on the white car after it failed to slow down
despite hand and arm signals.
Another guard said he returned fire at Iraqis dressed as civilians.
Eleven Iraqis were initially believed to have died in the incident,
but a further Iraqi government investigation said a total of 17 people
had been killed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7033332.stm
Sid Harth
Submitted by Robert Oak on Wed, 12/09/2009 - 22:20.
COPElizabeth WarrenTARP
The Congressional Oversight Panel has released their latest TARP
report, Taking Stock: What Has the Troubled Asset Relief Program
Achieved?
The Panel concluded that TARP was an important part of a broader
government strategy that stabilized the U.S. financial system. It is
apparent after 14 months, however, that significant underlying
weaknesses in the financial system remain.[TARP]created an implicit
guarantee for major financial institutions that distorts pricing for
capital and encourages excessive risk-taking. Unwinding this guarantee
poses a difficult long-term challenge.Some facts outlined in the
overview:
•1 in 8 homes is in foreclosure
•Unemployment is at the highest levels in 25 years
•Banks still not lending
•Small business & consumers not borrowing
•FDIC is in the red for the 1st time in 17 years
•Toxic assets still held, in some sort of not in a prayers chance of
hope belief these assets will revalue
•Pricing of assets and risk assessment now have distortions
I'll sum this up in our classic Populist terms. Way to go! You bailed
out Wall Street and screwed over main street!
Here is the actual report (large pdf). The report outlines the history
of TARP and has a series of timeline facts, one of which was shocking:
The number of privately securitized mortgages plunged from 1.75
million in 2006 to a mere 27,296 in 2008.I note on page 26, AIG still
has $165.1 billion in total government funding support and Citigroup
has a whopping $280.4 billion!
I'm ignoring the $45 billion for BoA since it was announced they
intend on paying the TARP funds back. Citigroup has just announced it
plans to pay back about $20 billion through a stock sale.
On warrants, to date COP notes the U.S. taxpayer, if warrants had been
sold at market value, would have received $198 billion more than it
has. (p. 30). COP estimates outstanding warrants value to be around
$6.35 trillion.
It seems this COP report is trying to allude to the overall state of
dismal affairs for the U.S. middle class and I want to pull out the
below graph on overall U.S. delinquencies, which shows a horrific
trend line:
and this one on charge offs (loans deemed not collectable):
While the report suggests this is why financial institutions are
reluctant to lend, I blame the banks for making loan terms impossible
(credit cards being the worst). The graphs also show the truer state
of affairs for most of America. We're broke, now cannot pay our bills
and there are no jobs.
There is much more in the report, including details on bank failures
and other programs.
Representative Jeb Hensarling wrote a dissenting analysis at the end
of the report (p. 121) which is really worth a read.
Hensarling states TARP failed on pretty much all fronts but this is of
interest:
It seems quite unlikely that the TARP – unassisted by the Federal
Reserve and the FDIC – would have stabilized the U.S. financial
system.
Robert Oak's blog
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/cop-tarp-assessment-report-december-2009
chhotemianinshallah
To Beat Al Qaeda, Look to the East
By SCOTT ATRAN
Published: December 12, 2009
Paris
Enlarge This Image
Jonathon Rosen
IN testimony last week before Congress, the American ambassador to
Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, insisted that President Obama’s revised
war strategy will “build support for the Afghan government,” while
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander there, vowed that
it will “absolutely” succeed in disrupting and degrading the Taliban.
Confidence is important, but we also have to recognize that the
decision to commit 30,000 more troops to a counterinsurgency effort
against a good segment of the Afghan population, with the focus on
converting a deeply unpopular and corrupt regime into a unified,
centralized state for the first time in that country’s history, is far
from a slam dunk. In the worst case, the surge may push General
McChrystal’s “core goal of defeating Al Qaeda” further away.
Al Qaeda is already on the ropes globally, with ever-dwindling
financial and popular support, and a drastically diminished ability to
work with other extremists worldwide, much less command them in major
operations. Its lethal agents are being systematically hunted down,
while those Muslims whose souls it seeks to save are increasingly
revolted by its methods.
Unfortunately, this weakening viral movement may have a new lease on
life in Afghanistan and Pakistan because we are pushing the Taliban
into its arms. By overestimating the threat from Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan, we are making it a greater threat to Pakistan and the
world. Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan are unlike Iraq,
the ancient birthplace of central government, or 1960s Vietnam, where
a strong state was backing the Communist insurgents. Afghanistan and
Pakistan must be dealt with on their own terms.
We’re winning against Al Qaeda and its kin in places where
antiterrorism efforts are local and built on an understanding that the
ties binding terrorist networks today are more cultural and familial
than political. Consider recent events in Southeast Asia.
In September, Indonesian security forces killed Noordin Muhammad Top,
then on the F.B.I.’s most-wanted terrorist list. Implicated in the
region’s worst suicide bombings — including the JW Marriott and Ritz-
Carlton bombings in Jakarta last July 17 — Noordin Top headed a
splinter group of the extremist religious organization Jemaah
Islamiyah (he called it Al Qaeda for the Malaysian Archipelago).
Research by my colleagues and me, supported by the National Science
Foundation and the Defense Department, reveals three critical factors
in such groups inspired by Al Qaeda, all of which local security
forces implicitly grasp but American counterintelligence workers seem
to underestimate.
What binds these groups together? First is friendship forged through
fighting: the Indonesian volunteers who fought the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan styled themselves the Afghan Alumni, and many kept in
contact when they returned home after the war. The second is school
ties and discipleship: many leading operatives in Southeast Asia come
from a handful of religious schools affiliated with Jemaah Islamiyah.
Out of some 30,000 religious schools in Indonesia, only about 50 have
a deadly legacy of producing violent extremists. Third is family ties;
as anyone who has watched the opening scene from “The Godfather”
knows, weddings can be terrific opportunities for networking and
plotting.
Understanding these three aspects of terrorist networking has given
law enforcement a leg up on the jihadists. Gen. Tito Karnavian, the
leader of the strike team that tracked down Noordin Top, told me that
“knowledge of the interconnected networks of Afghan Alumni, kinship
and marriage groups was very crucial to uncovering the inner circle of
Noordin.”
Consider Noordin Top’s third marriage, which cemented ties to key
suspects in the lead-up to the recent hotel bombings. His father-in-
law, who founded a Jemaah Islamiyah-related boarding school, stashed
explosives in his garden with the aid of another teacher at the
school. Using electronic intercepts and tracing family, school and
alumni ties, police officers found the cache in late June 2009. That
discovery may have prompted Noordin Top to initiate the hotel attacks
ahead of a planned simultaneous attack on the residence of President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
In addition, an Afghan Alumnus and nephew of Noordin Top’s father-in-
law was being pursued by the police for his role in a failed plot to
blow up a tourist cafe on Sumatra. Unfortunately, Noordin Top struck
the hotels before the Indonesian police could penetrate the entire
network, in part because another family group was still operating
under the police radar. This group included a florist who smuggled the
bombs into the hotels and a man whose eventual arrest led to discovery
of the plot against the president. Both terrorists were married to
sisters of a Yemeni-trained imam who recruited the hotel suicide
bombers, and of another brother who had infiltrated Indonesia’s
national airline.
Had the police pulled harder on the pieces of social yarn they had in
hand, they might have unraveled the hotel plot earlier. Still, their
work thwarted attacks planned for the future, including that on the
president.
Similarly, security officials in the Philippines have combined
intelligence from American and Australian sources with similar
tracking efforts to crack down on their terrorist networks, and as a
result most extremist groups are either seeking reconciliation with
the government — including the deadly Moro Islamic Liberation Front on
the island of Mindanao — or have devolved into kidnapping-and-
extortion gangs with no ideological focus. The separatist Abu Sayyaf
Group, once the most feared force in the region, now has no overall
spiritual or military leaders, few weapons and only a hundred or so
fighters.
So, how does this relate to a strategy against Al Qaeda in the West
and in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Al Qaeda’s main focus is harming the
United States and Europe, but there hasn’t been a successful attack in
these places directly commanded by Osama bin Laden and company since
9/11. The American invasion of Afghanistan devastated Al Qaeda’s core
of top personnel and its training camps. In a recent briefing to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. case
officer, said that recent history “refutes claims by some heads of the
intelligence community that all Islamist plots in the West can be
traced back to the Afghan-Pakistani border.” The real threat is
homegrown youths who gain inspiration from Osama bin Laden but little
else beyond an occasional self-financed spell at a degraded Qaeda-
linked training facility.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq encouraged many of these local plots,
including the train bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. In
their aftermaths, European law and security forces stopped plots from
coming to fruition by stepping up coordination and tracking links
among local extremists, their friends and friends of friends, while
also improving relations with young Muslim immigrants through
community outreach. Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have taken
similar steps.
Now we need to bring this perspective to Afghanistan and Pakistan —
one that is smart about cultures, customs and connections. The present
policy of focusing on troop strength and drones, and trying to win
over people by improving their lives with Western-style aid programs,
only continues a long history of foreign involvement and failure.
Reading a thousand years of Arab and Muslim history would show little
in the way of patterns that would have helped to predict 9/11, but our
predicament in Afghanistan rhymes with the past like a limerick.
A key factor helping the Taliban is the moral outrage of the Pashtun
tribes against those who deny them autonomy, including a right to bear
arms to defend their tribal code, known as Pashtunwali. Its sacred
tenets include protecting women’s purity (namus), the right to
personal revenge (badal), the sanctity of the guest (melmastia) and
sanctuary (nanawateh). Among all Pashtun tribes, inheritance, wealth,
social prestige and political status accrue through the father’s
line.
This social structure means that there can be no suspicion that the
male pedigree (often traceable in lineages spanning centuries) is
“corrupted” by doubtful paternity. Thus, revenge for sexual
misbehavior (rape, adultery, abduction) warrants killing seven members
of the offending group and often the “offending” woman. Yet
hospitality trumps vengeance: if a group accepts a guest, all must
honor him, even if prior grounds justify revenge. That’s one reason
American offers of millions for betraying Osama bin Laden fail.
Afghan hill societies have withstood centuries of would-be conquests
by keeping order with Pashtunwali in the absence of central authority.
When seemingly intractable conflicts arise, rival parties convene
councils, or jirgas, of elders and third parties to seek solutions
through consensus.
After 9/11, the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, assembled a council of
clerics to judge his claim that Mr. bin Laden was the country’s guest
and could not be surrendered. The clerics countered that because a
guest should not cause his host problems, Mr. bin Laden should leave.
But instead of keeping pressure on the Taliban to resolve the issue in
ways they could live with, the United States ridiculed their
deliberation and bombed them into a closer alliance with Al Qaeda.
Pakistani Pashtuns then offered to help out their Afghan brethren.
American-sponsored “reconciliation” efforts between the Afghan
government and the Taliban may be fatally flawed if they include
demands that Pashtun hill tribes give up their arms and support a
Constitution that values Western-inspired rights and judicial
institutions over traditions that have sustained the tribes against
all enemies.
THE secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the special envoy to the
region, Richard Holbrooke, suggest that victory in Afghanistan is
possible if the Taliban who pursue self-interest rather than ideology
can be co-opted with material incentives. But as the veteran war
reporter Jason Burke of The Observer of London told me: “Today, the
logical thing for the Pashtun conservatives is to stop fighting and
get rich through narcotics or Western aid, the latter being much lower
risk. But many won’t sell out.”
Why? In part because outsiders who ignore local group dynamics tend to
ride roughshod over values they don’t grasp. My research with
colleagues on group conflict in India, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco,
Pakistan and the Palestinian territories found that helping to improve
lives materially does little to reduce support for violence, and can
even increase it if people feel such help compromises their most
cherished values.
The original alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda was largely one
of convenience between a poverty-stricken national movement and a
transnational cause that brought it material help. American pressure
on Pakistan to attack the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their sanctuary gave
birth to the Pakistani Taliban, who forged their own ties to Al Qaeda
to fight the Pakistani state.
While some Taliban groups use the rhetoric of global jihad to inspire
ranks or enlist foreign fighters, the Pakistani Taliban show no
inclination to go after Western interests abroad. Their attacks, which
have included at least three assaults near nuclear facilities, warrant
concerted action — but in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan. As Mr.
Sageman, the former C.I.A. officer, puts it: “There’s no Qaeda in
Afghanistan and no Afghans in Qaeda.”
Pakistan has long preferred a policy of “respect for the independence
and sentiment of the tribes” that was advised in 1908 by Lord Curzon,
the British viceroy of India who established the North-West Frontier
Province as a buffer zone to “conciliate and contain” the Pashtun hill
tribes. In 1948, Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, removed all
troops from brigade level up in Waziristan and other tribal areas in a
plan aptly called Operation Curzon.
The problem today is that Al Qaeda is prodding the Pakistani Taliban
to hit state institutions in the hopes of provoking a full-scale
invasion of the tribal areas by the Pakistani Army; the idea is that
such an assault would rally the tribes to Al Qaeda’s cause and
threaten the state. The United States has been pushing for exactly
that sort of potentially disastrous action by Islamabad. But holding
to Curzon’s line may still be Pakistan’s best bet. The key in the
Afghan-Pakistani area, as in Southeast Asia, is to use local customs
and networks to our advantage. Of course, counterterrorism measures
are only as effective as local governments that execute them.
Afghanistan’s government is corrupt, unpopular and inept.
Besides, there’s really no Taliban central authority to talk to. To be
Taliban today means little more than to be a Pashtun tribesman who
believes that his fundamental beliefs and customary way of life are
threatened. Although most Taliban claim loyalty to Afghanistan’s
Mullah Omar, this allegiance varies greatly. Many Pakistani Taliban
leaders — including Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed by an American
drone in August, and his successor, Hakimullah Mehsud — rejected
Mullah Omar’s call to forgo suicide bombings against Pakistani
civilians.
In fact, it is the United States that holds today’s Taliban together.
Without us, their deeply divided coalition could well fragment.
Taliban resurgence depends on support from those notoriously unruly
hill tribes in Pakistan’s border regions, who are unsympathetic to the
original Taliban program of homogenizing tribal custom and politics
under one rule.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the Taliban were to sever ties to Mr. bin
Laden if he became a bigger headache to them than America. Al Qaeda
may have close relations to the network of Jalaluddin Haqqani, an
Afghan Taliban leader living in Pakistan, and the Shabi Khel branch of
the Mehsud tribe in Waziristan, but it isn’t wildly popular with many
other Taliban factions and forces.
Unlike Al Qaeda, the Taliban are interested in their homeland, not
ours. Things are different now than before 9/11. The Taliban know how
costly Osama bin Laden’s friendship can be. There’s a good chance that
enough factions in the loose Taliban coalition would opt to disinvite
their troublesome guest if we forget about trying to subdue them or
hold their territory. This would unwind the Taliban coalition into a
lot of straggling, loosely networked groups that could be eliminated
or contained using the lessons learned in Indonesia and elsewhere.
This means tracking down family and tribal networks, gaining a better
understanding of family ties and intervening only when we see actions
by Taliban and other groups to aid Al Qaeda or act outside their
region.
To defeat violent extremism in Afghanistan, less may be more — just as
it has been elsewhere in Asia.
Scott Atran, an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific
Research in Paris, John Jay College and the University of Michigan, is
the author of the forthcoming “Listen to the Devil.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13atran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
chhotemianinshallah
Asif Ali Zardari has been a key partner for the U.S. in its Afghan war
effort. But the deeply unpopular president has had to cede key powers
as he faces a possible revival of corruption charges.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's tacit approval of U.S.
airstrikes in Pakistan has only added to his deep unpopularity. He
know faces the chance that old corruption charges against him may be
revived. (Farooq Naeem / AFP/Getty Images / February 21, 2008)
By Alex Rodriguez
December 12, 2009
Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan - At a time when President Obama
needs help tackling skepticism in Pakistan over his new plan to fight
the Taliban and Al Qaeda, a valuable ally here is battling for
political survival.
Just 15 months into his term, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is
withering under pressure from the country's military, opposition
parties and vocal media critics.
Zardari has proved a reliable U.S. partner, even on actions that are
unpopular with the Pakistani public, such as the CIA's campaign of
airstrikes targeting Al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban in the tribal
areas along the border with Afghanistan.
Analysts say that if Zardari loses a measure of control over foreign
and defense issues, the winner is likely to be the Pakistani military,
which has a long history of tense relations with Washington.
The 54-year-old president already has ceded several of his most
important powers, including the chairmanship of the agency that
oversees Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, to Prime Minister Yusaf Raza
Gillani. He plans this month to give up authority to dissolve
parliament, dismiss the prime minister and appoint military chiefs,
leaving him little more than a figurehead.
Even that may not be enough for some of his critics, who want him
tried on corruption charges from the late 1980s, when he served in the
Cabinet of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, his wife, who was slain two
years ago. Though never convicted, he was imprisoned from 1990 to '93
and 1997 to 2004 in cases that he has contended were politically
motivated.
As president, Zardari is shielded by immunity from prosecution.
However, in a review that began Monday, the country's Supreme Court
could decide that he was ineligible for election as president and
therefore can be tried. One of the charges against him alleges that he
misappropriated $1.5 billion.
The timing of Zardari's political woes could prove troublesome for
Obama.
The U.S. leader's decision to set a deadline of July 2011 to start
withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has many Pakistanis worried that
the United States will leave its war-racked western neighbor before
ensuring its security -- the same step the U.S. was accused of taking
after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan 20 years ago.
Pakistanis also fear that the deployment of 30,000 more U.S. troops in
Afghanistan will force Taliban fighters to flee over the border into
Pakistan, where troops are already locked in battle with insurgents in
tribal areas.
The U.S. cannot send troops to Pakistan because of strong opposition
there. But Obama has increased the number of CIA drone strikes in
Pakistan's tribal areas, with tacit approval of Zardari's
administration.
Zardari also supported language in a five-year, $7.5-billion U.S. aid
package to Pakistan that called for civilian oversight of the
Pakistani military, despite a torrent of criticism from military
commanders, Pakistani news media and the opposition.
The Obama administration would prefer to work with a civilian
government that oversees the military, rather than one run by military
men, such as Zardari's predecessor, former Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
But as a result of Zardari's political troubles, the military
establishment could end up wielding far more control over the
country's affairs, particularly foreign policy. Gillani, who is
assuming the executive powers Zardari is relinquishing, is regarded as
being closer to the military than Zardari is, analysts say. Some of
the powers traditionally had been the prime minister's but were
assumed by Musharraf when he came to power in a military coup.
Gillani has not shied away from criticizing the United States. The day
before Obama announced his new Afghan plan last week, Gillani spoke
out against the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. He said
it would send Afghan Taliban fighters across the border and complicate
the Pakistani military's fight with them.
"Gillani is seen as being more respectful of the viewpoint of the
military establishment and of Pakistan's own security needs," said
Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a Lahore-based political analyst.
The Pakistani military has always been wary of Zardari's close
relationship with Washington. The Americans think they have found
another ally in Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief who launched major
operations against Islamic militants this year in the Swat Valley and
the volatile South Waziristan region along the border with
Afghanistan.
But the United States remains troubled by the Pakistani military's
fixation on neighbor India as its primary enemy, even as the Taliban
and its allies unleash nearly daily attacks across the country. Much
of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid have been spent on conventional
weapons meant for a possible conflict with India, rather than gearing
up for a counter-insurgency campaign against the Taliban.
Moreover, Washington continues to harbor concerns that elements of
Pakistan's military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence,
maintain close ties with Afghan Taliban leaders as a hedge against the
day U.S. troops leave Afghanistan, and as a counterbalance against
India's growing economic and diplomatic influence in Kabul.
"If Zardari goes and there's a political shake-up here, it will have
serious ramifications," said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani security
analyst and author of "Descent into Chaos," a critical look at U.S.
policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "What it would signify is that the
military would be in almost total control -- at least of foreign
policy toward India and Afghanistan. And I don't think that's such a
good idea."
Zardari doesn't have the public on his side in his latest political
battle. He is deeply unpopular. Most Pakistanis view him as corrupt,
and they blame him for economic troubles such as widespread poverty
and frequent electricity shutdowns.
Zardari's aides say the criticisms are unwarranted. He has never been
convicted of any corruption charges, and they say he deserves credit
for the two major military operations to uproot Taliban militants.
They say he is not giving up key presidential powers because of
pressure from critics, but because he believes Pakistan should adopt
the kind of government the country had before Musharraf: a system with
a strong parliament and prime minister.
Lawmaker and spokeswoman Farahnaz Ispahani said Zardari will retain
considerable authority as chairman of the ruling party, the Pakistan
Peoples Party, to which Gillani must answer.
"This is not the American system where the president is the all-
powerful figure in terms of day-to-day governance," Ispahani said. "So
he is getting rid of the unconstitutional powers that a military
dictator amassed for himself."
Pakistani analysts say Zardari had no alternative. His political
future has been imperiled by the Nov. 28 expiration of an amnesty
issued by Musharraf in 2007 that applied to politicians and
bureaucrats accused of corruption and criminal charges between 1986
and 1999, the year Musharraf seized power. The law was meant to allow
Bhutto to return from exile without facing the prospect of corruption
charges. When Bhutto was assassinated in December 2007, Zardari took
over as party leader and later was elected president by the country's
national and provincial lawmakers.
There are about 8,000 names on a list of politicians, including
Zardari and the Interior and Defense ministers, who benefited from the
amnesty, which is now under review by the Supreme Court.
"Much will depend on how the courts proceed," said analyst Rais. "I
think he's vulnerable both politically and in terms of popular
support, and that may reflect in the courts. If he surrenders all of
his powers and becomes a figurehead, probably he could survive."
That would satisfy Zardari's chief rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif of the opposition PML-N party. Like Zardari, Sharif has faced
corruption allegations. PML-N spokesman Ahsan Iqbal says his party
could live with a dramatically weakened Zardari presidency and a
government led by Gillani.
"Gillani taking the powers -- that's what we want," said Iqbal, who is
also a member of parliament. "We think democracy will only be secure
if we carry out immediate structural reforms. We need an independent
judiciary and parliament oversight over executive authority. And we
think whenever our term will come, if the system is still faulty, we
will also fail."
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-pakistan-zardari12-2009dec12,0,4541618,full.story
chhotemianinshallah
Obama Makes The Right Afghan Call
Robert C. O' Brien: The President's Decision Not To Abandon Our Allies
In Afghanistan Was The Correct One
Play CBS Video
Video
Obama's Afghan War Strategy
In a nationally televised speech, President Barack Obama discusses his
decision for the road ahead in Afghanistan. Obama announces that he is
sending 30,000 more troops to war and will begin to withdraw in 18
months.
U.S. soldiers patrol through the heart of Kabul, Afghanistan (AP
Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)
In his December 1, speech at West Point, President Obama announced
that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The
President's stated goal for this surge is to secure key population
centers, train Afghan forces, transfer responsibility to a capable
Afghan partner, and increase our partnership with Pakistan.
The President's decision buys time for our Afghan allies to build
institutions to defend themselves from the Taliban and should be
applauded. Unfortunately, the President's progressive base is upset
and even mainstream liberals such as NY Times columnist Thomas
Friedman have expressed doubts about the President's decision.
While corruption in Afghanistan is rampant, there are courageous
Afghans trying to build a new society by fighting corruption, crime
and extremism. These Afghans include judges, prosecutors and defense
lawyers who have been trained by the Public-Private Partnership for
Justice Reform in Afghanistan. They have expressed a strong desire to
establish the rule of law in Afghanistan by reforming the judicial
system. An example of their success is the Counter Narcotics Tribunal
in Kabul, which is convicting an increasing number of narco-
traffickers in transparent and fair court proceedings.
The number of female judges and prosecutors is also increasing each
year. These successes have come at a price - a rising number of
assassinations of judges, prosecutors and lawyers and threats against
their families. These are some of the “capable partners” the President
seeks to strengthen through civilian training programs as well as to
protect -- with better trained Afghan security forces.
Make no mistake; if we leave precipitously our Afghan friends will put
up a fight. They are tough that way. The Northern Alliance held out
against the Taliban for years the last time around and it was from
their territory that we commenced the liberation of Afghanistan after
September 11.
We must realize, however, that with its lucrative opium plantations in
southern Afghanistan, Al Qaeda financing from the Gulf and sanctuaries
in Pakistan, the Taliban will likely defeat our Afghan allies if
coalition forces leave before achieving the President's goals.
A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would make our exit from Vietnam
look like a picnic. Like in Saigon, those who are working with us in
Kabul will be the first ones rounded up. The next groups to be hit
will be ethnic minorities and women. To get a feel for what will
happen, recall the Taliban's take over of the Hazara region in
September 1998. Then, Taliban fighters searched Bamiyan villages to
find their opponents. They arrested and killed any male Hazara above
thirteen years of age. Thousands of Hazara houses were systematically
destroyed or burnt to the ground and fruit orchards were cut down.
International Red Cross and relief workers were also murdered. Only in
recent years have the tragic details of mass executions and Balkans-
style "ethnic cleansing" emerged from Bamiyan province.
In addition to the slaughter of minority tribesmen, the Taliban kept
women from working, attending school and prohibited them from leaving
their homes unless accompanied by a male relative. In public, women
were forced to wear the burqa. Hospitals were segregated and male
doctors prohibited from treating them. According to the Washington
Post, Kabul's half-million women were relegated to one hospital that
had 35 beds and no clean water, electricity or surgical equipment.
Such Taliban cruelty is not mere history but continues today. In
Pakistan's Swat Valley (once the “Switzerland of Pakistan”), where
until recently the Taliban ruled, over 200 schools have been
destroyed, girls over the age of eight were kept from attending class
and public libraries ransacked. Further, the Taliban banned music and
dancing, television and internet cafes. Women were ordered to wear the
burqa. Pakistan's newspapers have published photos of a 10 year old
girl being forced to pray on a bed of hot coals.
The Taliban brooks no dissent and enforces its edicts with public
executions, floggings, hand and foot amputations and other medieval
torture such as the falaka - a thick post with bars that traps the
feet of up to ten prisoners, whose soles are flayed with a length of
cable. In one widely reported 2001 incident, Taliban fighters shot
dead eight boys for daring to laugh. The teenage boys had been
chuckling when Taliban gunmen mowed them down.
To be certain, the challenges facing our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
marines, diplomats and aid workers as they assist our allies in
building an Afghanistan that can defeat the Taliban are significant.
Building robust civil and military institutions in a short period of
time will compound those challenges. Notwithstanding the difficulty of
these challenges, the President was right to give our Afghan allies
the opportunity to succeed.
By Robert C. O' Brien
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/12/opinion/main5972653.shtml
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-13 20:41:03
KHOST, Afghanistan, Dec. 13 (Xinhua) - Air strikes against Taliban
militants left 10 insurgents dead in Afghanistan's eastern Kuner
province on Saturday, an official said on Sunday.
"Acting on intelligence reports indicating that insurgents have
been planning to attack Afghan and international joint troops in Soki
district, the forces called on war planes, killing 10 insurgents on
the spot," Gen. Mohammad Qasim, commander of Afghan-NATO military
operations coordination center in the province, told Xinhua.
However, Tahir Salfi, who claimed to talk for Taliban outfits,
rejected the claim in talks with media via cell phone from undisclosed
location, saying "only two Taliban fighters have been injured in the
incident, but our men also inflected causalities on NATO forces."
Eastern Afghanistan has been the scene of Taliban-led insurgency.
Parts of the 30,000 additional troops announced by U.S. President
Barak Obama are expected to be deployed in eastern parts of the post-
Taliban country to combat Taliban-led militancy there.
Editor: Lin Zhi
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/13/content_12641505.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
abroad
Community groups, in bid to address problem, launch programs aimed at
youths
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A spike in terrorism cases involving U.S. citizens is challenging long-
held assumptions that Muslims in Europe are more susceptible to
radicalization than their better-assimilated counterparts in the
United States.
Four investigations disclosed in the past 12 months, including the
arrests of five Northern Virginia men in Pakistan this week,
underscore what the Obama administration asserts is a domestic threat
emanating from Americans training overseas with al-Qaeda and related
terrorist groups in Pakistan. "We have apprehended extremists within
our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan
and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror," President Obama said this
month in announcing plans to deploy 30,000 more troops to
Afghanistan.
American Muslim organizations, jolted by the spate of cases, are
abandoning their hesitation to speak out about the issue. While
underlining that only a tiny minority has become radicalized, two
major groups -- the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Council on
American-Islamic Relations -- said this week that they would launch
counter-radicalization programs aimed at young people.
Several U.S. and international terrorism analysts say that American
Muslims, as a group, remain more prosperous, assimilated and moderate
than those in Europe. But the analysts also note that immigration
trends, the global spread of a militant Islamism and controversial
actions by the United States and its allies since the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks increase the chances that U.S. Muslims could carry out a
domestic attack.
"The U.S. is experiencing what countries like the U.K. have gone
through several years ago," said Sajjan Gohel, director of
international security at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a research
organization in London. "The worry for the U.S. is there will be a
similar blow-back of homegrown terrorism."
Before 2004, Britons in terrorist training abroad looked for overseas
targets such as Israel or South Asia, Gohel said. Over the next two
years, as British troops fought alongside Americans in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Britain was stunned by at least four bomb plots by
Britons linked to al-Qaeda -- and the July 7, 2005, attack on the
London transit system that killed 52 people.
"As we continue to get enmeshed in these conflicts, it's naive to
think our population is not going to be affected by the global
rhetoric surrounding this," said Christine Fair, a Georgetown
University professor specializing in Pakistan.
Worse in Europe?
Still, several analysts said the problem in the United States still
appears to be an order of magnitude less than in Europe. For example,
British domestic intelligence chiefs warned in 2006 and 2007 of 200
terrorist networks, at least 2,000 individuals who posed a direct
security threat and perhaps 2,000 as-yet unknown would-be terrorists.
But just as British authorities identified disenchanted elements among
its 800,000-strong Pakistani community, several Pakistani Americans
have been detained this fall in cases linked to extremists in
Pakistan. At least three of the five Virginia residents were in touch
with a Taliban recruiter, according to Pakistani authorities. Other
examples include David C. Headley, a U.S. citizen from Chicago who was
accused this week of helping to plot the November 2008 terrorist
attacks in Mumbai.
Najibullah Zazi, 24, a Denver airport shuttle driver and U.S.
permanent resident who was born in Afghanistan and reared in Pakistan,
was charged in September of testing explosives for an attack, possibly
in New York.
The cases of radicalization are not limited to Pakistani Americans. In
January, Bryant N. Vinas, 26, a Hispanic American convert to Islam,
pleaded guilty to receiving training from al-Qaeda in Pakistan last
year.
Daniel P. Boyd, a white Muslim convert who lives in North Carolina,
was accused this summer of plotting to attack U.S. military personnel
at Quantico, and of leading a group of seven men to fight in the
Middle East after Israel's 2006 war with the group Hezbollah. Last
month, U.S. authorities announced the latest of 14 indictments related
to the alleged recruiting of more than 20 Somali American youths from
Minnesota to join an Islamist insurgency in Somalia. U.S.-backed
Ethiopian forces toppled an Islamist government in Somalia in 2006.
Concern about Somalis
Somali Americans are among the youngest, poorest and newest immigrants
to the United States, with 60 percent having arrived since 2000 and 51
percent living in poverty.
"We have to look very hard at those who arrived in the last 10 or 15
years," said Charles Allen, a veteran CIA officer and chief
intelligence officer for the Homeland Security Department from 2005
until this year. "We're having this problem with Somalis, and we're
having it with Pakistanis, and there will be other nations as well."
U.S. authorities said the American Muslim community is central to
countering extremism. In the Minnesota and Virginia cases, parents and
community leaders sounded the alarm when the youths disappeared.
A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center found that most Muslim
Americans are "decidedly American" in income, education and attitudes,
rejecting extremism by larger margins than Muslim minorities in
Europe.
Haris Tarin, the Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs
Council, said that imams and community leaders in the United States
have undergone a profound "shift in attitude" about the extent of the
problem.
"All of these cases definitely have raised a red flag in our
community," Tarin said in an interview. "How do we ensure young
people . . . do not fall prey to this extremist ideology, especially
on the Internet and cyberspace?"
To this end, his organization has produced a webcast, and the Council
on American-Islamic Relations is developing an Internet portal aimed
at American Muslims. In it, authorities debunk militant
interpretations of the Koran, such as ones cited by Army Maj. Nidal M.
Hasan, charged in the shooting deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex.,
last month.
Not all private and government counterterrorism officials see a cause
for concern. Cases so far have been unrelated, and many are limited to
youths without the skills to carry out an attack.
"We just don't have the same type of cases here" as in Europe, said
Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer, noting that many Muslim
Americans who go abroad want to "fight Americans abroad."
Fawaz Gerges, a professor at the London School of Economics and
Political Science who has studied would-be jihadists in the United
States and elsewhere, noted that radicalized individuals have been
unable to tap domestic networks of supporters.
The Internet provides "ideological ammunition" for such youths, he
said. However, he noted, "They don't have the training, they don't
have the equipment. . . . . But the most important point, the
community itself does not really provide them with shelter."
Correspondents Sudarsan Raghavan in Madrid, Craig Whitlock in Berlin
and correspondent Griff Witte in Kabul; special correspondent Karla
Adams in London; and news researcher Julie Tate in Washington
contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104404.html
bademiyansubhanallah
In Oslo, Obama tries to reconcile early antiwar rhetoric with
prevailing realities
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 11, 2009
If any further evidence were needed of the distance between running
for president and being president, it came Thursday in Oslo as
President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. The politician who had
sought the White House as the champion of the antiwar forces in his
party spoke as the commander in chief, offering a principled defense
of waging just wars.
The incongruity of a president accepting the peace prize at a time
when his nation is conducting battles in Iraq and Afghanistan was lost
on no one, most notably Obama. He confronted this head-on.
The Nobel ceremonies came little more than a week after Obama
announced that he would be sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan. As he put it starkly, "Some will kill and some will be
killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed
conflict."
Seven years ago, in a now-famous speech on the eve of a congressional
vote to give then-President George W. Bush the authority to take the
country to war against Iraq, Obama, who was an Illinois state senator
at the time, said: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb
wars."
That statement was a precursor to what Obama said Thursday in Oslo,
but the 2002 speech has been remembered only for its vigorous
criticism of the pending conflict in Iraq as well as Obama's prescient
description of what might happen if the United States invaded.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S.
occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences," he said. "I know that an invasion of Iraq
without a clear rationale and without strong international support
will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst,
rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the
recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
His speech in Oslo may be remembered for his argument in favor of war
as an instrument designed to secure peace. Obama recalled the
nonviolent examples of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King
Jr. He acknowledged that he is a direct beneficiary of what nonviolent
protest achieved for African Americans. He said, "There's nothing weak
-- nothing passive, nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi
and King."
But then came the admission that his decisions are shaped by a
perspective that is a long distance from that of those men, as well as
from that of a young state senator from Illinois or underdog
presidential candidate. "As a head of state sworn to protect and
defend my nation," he said, "I cannot be guided by their examples
alone. I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of
threats to the American people. For make no mistake, evil does exist
in the world."
Obama drew some criticism after his speech at West Point for not
showing passion in defense of his escalation or offering the rhetoric
of victory at all costs that marked Bush's advocacy of using force
after Sept. 11, 2001. If anything, Obama's speech in Oslo was a more
eloquent and direct statement of why he believes a larger war in
Afghanistan is necessary and just.
But it was not full-throated. It was instead in keeping with Obama's
lawyerly approach to difficult issues and to his belief that the
either/or choices are often false choices and that the truth lies
somewhere in between. As he put it, "The instruments of war do have a
role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist
with another: that no matter how justified, war promises human
tragedy."
In Chicago seven years ago, Obama couched his opposition to a war in
Iraq in terms that allowed room for him to emerge as a potential
commander in chief who would not shrink from using force as
necessary.
In Oslo, he shaded his defense of war with hard-headed words about the
difficulty of waging peace. "I understand why war is not popular," he
said, "but I know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely
enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails
sacrifice."
What he may not have imagined in 2002 is that it would be left to him
to finish what Bush started -- not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan.
Here were his words that day in October in Chicago: "You want a fight,
President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaeda
through effective, coordinated intelligence and a shutting down of the
financial networks that support terrorism and a homeland security
program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
At the time, his prescription for finishing the fight with Osama bin
Laden did not include an explicit call to arms. The war in Afghanistan
was then a year old, and although bin Laden was still at large, the
action would soon shift to Iraq. A military escalation in Afghanistan
was not on anyone's radar.
Now Obama is commander in chief, and Afghanistan is his battle.
Finishing the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaeda is his responsibility.
In Oslo, he confronted all those realities, bearing burdens that no
candidate ever does.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003991.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and
political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British
television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News,
and NPR. Appeasing the Taliban: Bishop Venner owes an apology to the
victims of 9/11
By Nile Gardiner World
Last updated: December 14th, 2009
2 Comments
The Telegraph’s Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Duncan Gardham have an
explosive report on the appalling views of the Rt. Rev. Stephen
Venner, recently commissioned by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, to serve as Bishop to the Forces. Here’s what Venner said:
“We’ve been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban.”
“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for
which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say
therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation
because it’s not honest really.”
“The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their
faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
As Damian Thompson asked earlier, what would Venner have said about
the Nazis? One can only imagine, and it’s not pretty.
During the Second World War, remarks like these about the enemy would
have rightly been regarded as an act of treason. They are an affront
to the memory of the 237 British servicemen and women who have been
killed by the Taliban. They are also a massive insult to the 3,000
victims of the 9/11 attacks – including hundreds of Britons –
perpetrated by al-Qaeda thanks to the hospitality of their Taliban
hosts.
The Taliban are not an honourable foe deserving of admiration. They
are vicious, Islamist thugs, evil terrorists who brutalise the Afghan
people while promoting the cause of Osama bin Laden. Their savagery is
similar to that of the Nazis and should be universally condemned.
Bishop Venner’s comments are a sickening disgrace, and he should
withdraw them, with an unreserved apology to all who have lost loved
ones at the murderous hands of the Taliban and their al-Qaeda cohorts.
At a time of war, political and religious leaders must never give
comfort to the enemy. That is exactly what Venner has done – he has
crossed the line and disgraced his position.
He should also do the decent thing and step down from his post – it’s
hard to see how Bishop Venner can serve his country with an ounce of
dignity after offering the Taliban a propaganda coup.
COMMENTS
Although I appreciate a lot of what the Bishop says, this incident
highlights again the dangers of publicly funded chaplaincy.
ShaneO'Neill on Dec 14th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Report commentI have seen propaganda films from the WWII era in the
USA that speak of the faith and loyalty of the Japanese Imperial
Forces. Unlike the Bishop’s statement, however, the propaganda films
were not expressing admiration but rather a warning that the Japanese
soldiers, sailors and airmen were a formidable and determined enemy
that would not easily surrender. And so it eventuated: it took two A-
bombs to convince the Emperor to issue a surrender directive, and even
as he prepared to do so, some members of his military and political
higher eschelon were prepared to stop him.
They say any drug can be misused as a poison, and any scientific
discovery misused as an offensive weapon. So too can faith and loyalty
be misdirected toward evil ends – and when they are, they are not to
be praised and admired.
bademiyansubhanallah
By Jennie Matthew (AFP) – 3 hours ago
KABUL — After a year of soaring violence and weakening government
control in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a flagship US strategy aimed at
ending the war against Al-Qaeda ushers in a 2010 fraught with peril.
Violence is at an all-time high since US-led troops invaded
Afghanistan more than eight years ago to unseat the Taliban and
destroy Al-Qaeda's sanctuary, now reputed to lie in the border areas
of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has emerged tarnished after his August
re-election was mired in massive fraud while the civilian government
in Pakistan, once a bright hope for regional stability, is flailing.
President Barack Obama has expanded the war, this year ordering the
deployment of over 50,000 extra troops to Afghanistan and pressuring
Pakistan to do more to fight militants or reportedly risk more drone
attacks and special forces raids.
He has narrowed his objectives to denying Al-Qaeda a safe haven,
preventing the Taliban from overthrowing the Kabul government, and
training Afghan forces and authorities to take responsibility, but the
challenge ahead is immense.
Washington has identified the Afghan-Pakistani border as the
"epicentre of violent extremism," Al-Qaeda's chief sanctuary, the most
dangerous place on earth and the presumed hideout of Osama bin Laden.
The Taliban are said to have a significant presence across virtually
all Afghanistan and commanders warn that more troops will spell more
violence at least in the short-term, with NATO and US forces set to
rise to 150,000.
In impoverished Afghanistan, civilian casualties were up 24 percent
during the first six months of this year to 1,013 compared to the same
period in 2008, according to UN statistics.
The independent icasualties.org says 491 foreign soldiers have died so
far this year in Afghanistan, up 66 percent from 2008 and more than
three times the number killed in Iraq in 2009.
Islamabad, which US officials still suspect of sponsoring Islamist
radicals to counter India, has been dragged into a war with Taliban
guerrillas whose response to the US-Pakistani alliance has been a 29-
month bombing campaign.
Militant attacks in Pakistan have killed at least 1,150 people this
year, up 26 percent on 2008, according to an AFP tally.
Strikes are becoming increasingly brazen. In October militants
besieged army headquarters for 22 hours while a bombing in a
northwestern market that month killed 125 people, mostly civilians, in
the deadliest attack in two years.
Scores of troops have died in a string of Pakistani offensives this
year against home-grown Taliban in the northwest that have signalled a
greater determination to fight those attacking on Pakistani soil.
But rising violence has weakened the US-backed governments in both
Kabul and Islamabad.
Fraud marred the August presidential election in Afghanistan, which
was intended as a milestone on the road to democracy but ended up with
Karzai being declared victor by his officials when his only rival
pulled out.
After months of political paralysis, Karzai has still not announced a
new cabinet, while the West hopes for a more transparent line-up that
can tackle corruption, sideline warlords and thus boost the
president's legitimacy.
The new year will see an international conference in London on January
28 that could set a short time-frame to hand over security to Afghan
forces.
Changes will take place at the heavily criticised UN mission in
Afghanistan when envoy Kai Eide steps down in March.
The lessons from the election debacle "must be used to ensure a much
strengthened process for the planned 2010 national assembly and
district elections," says the International Crisis Group.
In Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari's position has never been more
precarious.
His relations with the powerful military are strained, his approval
ratings abysmal and he could yet find corruption charges reopened
against him.
It remains to be seen how far moves to transfer powers to Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, intended to bolster parliament after the
rule of military leader Pervez Musharraf, will be enacted.
Anti-Americanism is being stoked by increasing US drone attacks
targeted at Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders hunkered down in some of the
world's most hostile terrain.
Taliban attacks against the heart of the powerful security
establishment have raised questions about the military's capability to
crush extremists.
Islamabad is troubled by reports that if it fails to take firmer
action, the United States will send special forces into Pakistan to
chase the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and will extend drone attacks to
territory under direct state control.
In Afghanistan, US plans to start withdrawing troops in 18 months are
further fanning uncertainty. In Pakistan, fears persist that India
poses a bigger threat than the Taliban -- something little addressed
in the West.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved
Violence is at an all-time high since US-led troops invaded
Afghanistan more than eight years ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hJmSRthMpdFUI1077SGeRrtVAKPg
chhotemianinshallah
Europe and Afghanistan
Published: December 13, 2009
Afghanistan is not and should not be just the United States’ fight. Al
Qaeda has used its sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan to plot and
launch attacks on European cities. We welcome the news that some of
America’s 42 military partners in Afghanistan plan to send more
troops.
It was not an easy call. As President Obama said in his Nobel
acceptance speech last week, “In many countries, there is a disconnect
between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the
broader public.” And in Europe any ambivalence has long been replaced
by fierce demands for withdrawal.
Still, NATO’s announcement that an additional 7,000 troops will be
going falls short of what is needed, and has too many casualty-
limiting caveats attached.
That isn’t good for Afghanistan or NATO, which has never fully
shouldered the burden of this mission. And it is unfair to the
American people, who are being asked to make disproportionate
sacrifices for what is, emphatically, a common fight.
When more closely parsed, the NATO numbers look even less impressive.
Almost 2,000 will come from countries outside the alliance (including
Australia, South Korea, Sweden and aspiring NATO members, Georgia,
Ukraine, Macedonia and Montenegro). And more than half of the new NATO
troops will come from just three member states: Britain, whose force
will go up to 10,000; Italy, which will go to roughly 4,000; and
Poland, which will total 2,800.
So far, neither France, which has 3,750 troops there, nor Germany,
with roughly 4,300, has agreed to send any additional troops.
Meanwhile, the Netherlands, with roughly 2,200, will withdraw its
forces in the course of 2010; Canada, with 2,800, will be leaving by
2011. That means as American troop levels rise from 68,000 to 98,000
by next summer, allied troop levels are not likely to go much higher
than the present 38,000.
Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of European
support for the United States and offers of assistance in Afghanistan
under the common defense clause of the NATO treaty. The Bush
administration arrogantly spurned that offer, and then proceeded to
alienate European opinion with its disastrous war in Iraq. Trans-
Atlantic cooperation on Afghanistan still has not recovered.
The challenge for President Obama and European leaders is to overcome
that unhappy recent history before it does more damage to the war
effort in Afghanistan and to the NATO alliance. Germany’s chancellor,
Angela Merkel, and France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, have
repeatedly stated that their countries have a stake in the future of
Afghanistan and the future of NATO. But both are wary of pushing their
voters too far, too fast. (Both have essentially postponed their
decisions on further troop contributions until late next month.)
Democratically elected leaders cannot ignore public skepticism, but
they should not surrender to it when they know better. Mrs. Merkel and
Mr. Sarkozy must educate their voters to the harsh reality that Europe
will also pay a high price if the Taliban and Al Qaeda get to retake
Afghanistan and further destabilize Pakistan.
There is a lot Europe can do in addition to sending more troops.
Afghanistan also needs more skilled civilian advisers to work with
President Hamid Karzai’s new cabinet appointees. And it urgently needs
help reconstructing its dysfunctional national police force — a job
the United Nations initially assigned to Germany, which fumbled it.
NATO had it right in 2001. Defeating Al Qaeda is a matter of common
defense. President Obama is right to insist that the allies do more.
Now Europe’s leaders need to demand more of themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14mon1.html?ref=opinion
bademiyansubhanallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-15 00:58:25
LONDON, Dec. 14 (Xinhua) -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
said on Monday that Britain will provide 150 million pounds (about240
million U.S. dollars) to upgrade training to detect roadside bombs
over next three years.
Brown's remarks came amid growing public anger at Britain's rising
death toll in Afghanistan, caused largely by improvised explosive
devices (IED) planted by Taliban militants.
Over the last year the Taliban have increasingly used explosive
devices rather than fight the British army face to face and the types
of devices are always changing, Brown added that "so to deal with that
threat we have increased our specialist forces, our electronic
surveillance, our intelligence and our hand held detectors and we have
dismantled around 1,500 IEDs in the recent months."
He also confirmed that 68 international delegations would attend
the January conference in London, including all military partners and
other regional powers and he expected other nations to announce
further troop deployments in Afghanistan.
Brown said "he hoped to get more support for our Afghanistan
strategy to train, mentor and partner the Afghan security forces and
to help the economy and people of Afghanistan to get a bigger stake in
their own future. President Karzai will bring forward his plan for the
future of Afghanistan for discussion at the conference."
The prime minister paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Sunday
where he met with British forces and held talks with Afghan President
Hamid Karzai and Afghan authorities.
During a webchat on Monday morning, Brown said "I met Afghan
troops being trained by British troops in Helmand yesterday. They came
from every region of Afghanistan and showed it is possible to build a
national army that is both professional and united. They are ready to
take on the Taliban and the Afghan army will rise in number to 135,000
over the next year. And I discussed this very issue with the president
of Afghanistan and the defense minister who are committed to this
strategy."
Brown said a stable Afghanistan means a safer Britain. It is right
to train their forces, police and security services so they can take
control of the security of their country for themselves.
"The issue is the Afghan army, security forces and police
gradually taking control and it is at that point that our forces can
start to come home," he said.
"We have a job to do to destroy the attempt by al-Qaida to attack
the streets of Britain and to prevent the Taliban from offering them
safe haven in Afghanistan. We have just stepped up the number of
forces dedicated to this job and are now training the Afghan forces so
they can take on the role of maintaining the security," he said.
On corruption, Brown said "President Karzai has given me and the
international community assurances that he will work to tackle
corruption and at the London Conference on Jan. 28 next year we will
be asking him for updates on progress. Of course it is about delivery
not just words and we will be vigilant in seeking action."
Editor: Yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/15/content_12646973.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: December 14, 2009
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Demands by the United States for Pakistan to
crack down on the strongest Taliban warrior in Afghanistan, Siraj
Haqqani, whose fighters pose the biggest threat to American forces,
have been rebuffed by the Pakistani military, according to Pakistani
military officials and diplomats.
Times Topics: Sirajuddin Haqqani | TalibanThe Obama administration
wants Pakistan to turn on Mr. Haqqani, a longtime asset of Pakistan’s
spy agency who uses the tribal area of North Waziristan as his
sanctuary. But, the officials said, Pakistan views the entreaties as
contrary to its interests in Afghanistan beyond the timetable of
President Obama’s surge, which envisions drawing down American forces
beginning in mid-2011.
The demands, first made by senior American officials before President
Obama’s Afghanistan speech and repeated many times since, were renewed
in a written demarche delivered in recent days by the United States
Embassy to the head of the Pakistani military, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez
Kayani, according to American officials. Gen. David Petraeus followed
up on Monday during a visit to Islamabad.
The demands have been accompanied by strong suggestions that if the
Pakistanis cannot take care of the problem, including dismantling the
Taliban leadership based in Quetta, Pakistan, then the Americans will
by resorting to broader and more frequent drone strikes in Pakistan.
But the Pakistanis have greeted the refrain with official public
silence and private anger, illustrating the widening gulf between the
allies over the Afghan war.
Former Pakistani military officers voice irritation with the American
insistence daily on television, part of a mounting grievance in
Pakistan that the alliance with the United States is too costly to
bear.
“It is really beginning to irk and anger us,” said a security official
familiar with the deliberations at the senior levels of the Pakistani
leadership.
The core reason for Pakistan’s imperviousness is its scant faith in
the Obama surge, and what Pakistan sees as the need to position itself
for a major regional realignment in Afghanistan once American forces
begin to leave.
It considers Mr. Haqqani and his control of broad swaths of Afghan
territory vital to Pakistan in the jostling for influence that will
pit Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran in the post-American
Afghan arena, the Pakistani officials said.
Pakistan is particularly eager to counter the growing influence of its
archenemy, India, which is pouring $1.2 billion in aid into
Afghanistan. “If American walks away, Pakistan is very worried that it
will have India on its eastern border and India on its western border
in Afghanistan,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to
the United States who is pro-American in his views.
For that reason, Mr. Fatemi said, the Pakistani Army was “very
reluctant” to jettison Mr. Haqqani, Pakistan’s strong card in
Afghanistan. Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr.
Haqqani because they consider him an important player in
reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in
Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.
Because Mr. Haqqani shelters Qaeda leaders and operatives in North
Waziristan, Washington was opposed to including Mr. Haqqani among the
possible reconcilable Taliban, at least for the moment, a Western
diplomat said.
In his reply to the Americans, the head of the Pakistani military,
Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, stressed a short-term argument, according
to two Pakistani officials familiar with the response.
Pakistan currently had its hands full fighting the Pakistani Taliban
in South Waziristan and other places, and it was beyond its capacity
to open another front against the Afghan Taliban, the officials said
of General Kayani’s response.
The offensive has had the secondary effect of constraining the Haqqani
network in North Waziristan and driving some of its commanders and
fighters across the border to Afghanistan, senior American military
officials in Afghanistan said.
But implicit in General Kayani’s reply was the fact that the homegrown
Pakistani Taliban represent the real threat to Pakistan. They are the
ones launching attacks against security installations and civilian
markets in Pakistan’s cities and must be the army’s priority, General
Kayani argued, the officials said.
For his part, Mr. Haqqani fights in Afghanistan, and is considered
more of an asset than a threat by the Pakistanis. But he is the most
potent force fighting the Americans, American and Pakistani officials
agree.
He has subcommanders threaded throughout eastern and southern
Afghanistan. His fighters control Paktika, Paktia and Khost provinces
in Afghanistan, which lie close to North Waziristan. His men are also
strong in Ghazni, Logar and Wardak provinces, the officials said.
Because Mr. Haqqani now spends so much time in Afghanistan — about
three weeks of every month, according to a Pakistani security official
— if the Americans want to eliminate him, their troops should have
ample opportunity to capture him, Pakistani security officials argue.
As a son of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a leading mujahedeen fighter against
the Soviets who is now aged and apparently confined to bed, Siraj
Haqqani is keeper of a formidable lineage and history.
In the early 1970s, the father attended a well known madrassa, Dar-ul-
Uloom Haqqaniya in the Pakistani town of Akora Khattack in North-West
Frontier Province.
In the 1980s, Jalaluddin Haqqani received money and arms from the
C.I.A. routed through Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter Services
Intelligence, to fight the Soviets, according to Ahmed Rashid, an
expert on the Afghan Taliban and the author of “Descent Into Chaos.”
In the 1990s, when the Taliban ran Afghanistan, Jalaluddin Haqqani
served as governor of Paktia Province.
The relationship between the Haqqanis and Osama bin Laden dates back
to the 1980s war against the Soviets, according to Kamran Bokhari, the
South Asia director for Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis
company.
When the Taliban government collapsed at the end of 2001 and Qaeda
operatives fled from Tora Bora to Pakistan, the Haqqanis relocated
their command structure to North Waziristan and welcomed Al Qaeda, Mr.
Bokhari said.
The biggest gift of the Pakistanis to the Haqqanis was the use of the
North Waziristan as their fiefdom, he said.
The Pakistani Army did not appear to be assisting the Haqqanis with
training or equipment, he said. More than 20 members of the Haqqani
nuclear family were killed in a drone attack in North Waziristan last
year, showing the limits of how far the Pakistanis could protect them,
Mr. Bokhari said.
Today Siraj Haqqani has anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000 Taliban under
his command. He is technically a member of the Afghan Taliban
leadership based in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s Baluchistan
Province.
That leadership is headed by Mullah Omar, the former leader of the
Taliban regime. But Mr. Haqqani operates fairly independently of them
inside Afghanistan.
Siraj Haqqani maintains an uneasy relationship with the Pakistani
Taliban, said Maulana Yousaf Shah, the administrator of the madrassa
at Akora Khattack.
Mr. Haqqani believed the chief jihadi objective should be forcing the
foreigners out of Afghanistan, and he had tried but failed to redirect
the Pakistani Taliban to fight in Afghanistan as well, he said.
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan; Pir Zubair
Shah from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Kabul, Afganistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15haqqani.html?_r=1
bademiyansubhanallah
Play Video Video:Petraeus: tough Afghan fight ahead Reuters .
Play Video Video:Petraeus: 'Afghan war will get harder' AP
.
AP – U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen speaks
during a press conference in Kabul, Afghanistan …
By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, Ap National
Security Writer – 2 hrs 44 mins ago
KABUL – The top U.S. military officer said the Taliban-led insurgency
in Afghanistan is harder to defeat now than it was a year ago, and
said he will take up concerns about strengthening ties to al-Qaida
with government leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was touring
U.S. bases in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday. He will also be in
Pakistan this week.
"I remain deeply concerned by the growing level of collusion between
the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida and other extremist groups taking
refuge across the border in Pakistan," Mullen said at the start of his
visit Monday.
"Getting at this network, which is now more entrenched, will be a far
more difficult task than it was just one year ago," Mullen said in the
Afghan capital.
"As part of this trip, I intend to discuss with Afghan and Pakistani
leaders the extent to which we all can better cooperate and coordinate
our activities to eliminate the safe havens from which these groups
plan and operate."
He said he was headed to Islamabad and will have another meeting, his
14th, with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani as well as other top Pakistani
officials.
Painting a grim picture, Mullen said Afghan insurgents were dominant
in one-third of Afghanistan's 34 provinces and "the insurgency has
grown more violent, more pervasive and more sophisticated."
Mullen's reference to militants based in Pakistan appeared aimed at
U.S. efforts to press the Pakistani government to step up its
crackdown on extremists who have long used their country as a refuge.
The U.S. believes most of al-Qaida's top leadership has moved from
Afghanistan to the lawless border area just inside Pakistan.
Mullen said he believed, however, that Pakistan was addressing the
threat.
"I have seen Pakistan increase its commitment fairly dramatically over
the past 12 to 18 months," he said, adding: "I am completely convinced
that the government of Pakistan and the Pakistani military are very
focused on this. They are going after this threat, as they have very
clearly over the last year."
A military official who briefed members of Mullen's staff and
reporters on Monday said the Haqqani network of Afghan fighters has
become the biggest threat to U.S. forces in the eastern part of the
country.
That official and others who spoke on condition of anonymity to
describe sensitive operations said the Haqqani area of sanctuary in
Pakistan has gotten somewhat smaller, which is a good sign.
Pressure on the fighters from the Pakistani military has forced some
over the border to Afghanistan, where they are easier for U.S. forces
to kill, the officials said.
Last week, U.S. officials in Washington said the Obama administration
was considering widening missile strikes on al-Qaida and other
militants inside Pakistan and planning to bolster the training of
Pakistan's forces in the key border areas. Those officials spoke on
condition of anonymity because the information was sensitive.
Associated Press Writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_re_as/as_us_afghanistan
chhotemianinshallah
Venner: Remarks were 'incredibly insensitive'
By Rob Quinn|
Posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
(Newser) – A British bishop has apologized for suggesting that the
Taliban have some admirable qualities. Stephen Venner, the newly
appointed bishop to Britain's armed forces, had warned against
portraying the Taliban as pure evil and said their "conviction to
their faith and their sense of loyalty" could perhaps be admired, the
Independent reports. The remarks were "incredibly insensitive," Venner
now admits and stresses that he believes the Taliban's tactics are
indeed evil.
"The way that the Taliban are waging war in Afghanistan is evil, both
in their use of indiscriminate killing and their terrorizing of the
civilian population," Venner said. "No religion could condone their
actions." The bishop said he hoped to be able to continue in his
current role, although lawmakers accusing him of "giving comfort and
succor to our enemies" have called for his resignation.
http://www.newser.com/story/76171/brit-bishop-sorry-for-praising-taliban.html
chhotemianinshallah
The government denies changing rules of engagement in Afghanistan
following accusations the September strike was a commander’s attempt
to “destroy” Taliban militants.
Merkel to face critics on deadly Afghanistan air strikeBerlin –
Germany denied on Monday that it had changed its rules of engagement
in Afghanistan, as further damaging allegations about a September air
strike put the government on the defensive.
The German commander who called in the 4 September strike, Colonel
Georg Klein, did so in order to "destroy" Taliban militants, and not
just two stolen fuel trucks he feared would be used to attack his
troops, media reports said.
Opposition politicians said that if this was the case, this breached
the terms of the parliamentary mandate for Germany's 4,300 troops in
Afghanistan, and demanded to know if the rules had been changed.
They called on Chancellor Angela Merkel to make a statement in
parliament to shed light on the incident, which has already claimed
the scalps of Germany's top general and the defence minister at the
time.
Merkel's spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm told a regular briefing on Monday
dominated by the affair that any suggestion that there was a new
policy in Afghanistan was "unfounded".
"The mandate ... allows for military force to be brought into play in
Afghanistan providing it is not excessive and has the approval of the
military commanders on the ground," Wilhelm said. "We act within the
mandate."
He also said a parliamentary commission looking into the air strike,
which was due to convene for the first time this week, would leave no
stone unturned.
"On 4 September at 0150 I decided to destroy with air power two fuel
tankers stolen on 3 September as well as INS (insurgents) at the
vehicles," Spiegel magazine cited a two-page report by Klein as
saying.
Another report, by the NATO-led International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF), cited in German newspapers, went further: "He wanted to
attack the people, not the vehicles."
"It is difficult to determine why the focus of (Klein) was on the
Taliban in the target area and not just on the stolen tankers, which
posed the greater danger to the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team)
forces," it said.
The strike killed more than 100 people, including between 60 and 80
insurgents, newspapers cited the critical, classified ISAF report as
saying.
Media reports also turned up the heat on Defence Minister Karl-Theodor
zu Guttenberg, who forced the German military's top general, Wolfgang
Schneiderhan, and a senior defence ministry official to quit over the
affair in November.
Franz Josef Jung, who had been defence minister at the time of the
attack, also stepped down from his new post of labour minister
following intense political pressure.
Guttenberg, 38, a rising star of the German political scene, at first
said the air strike was "military appropriate" and then changed his
mind after receiving additional information that he said had been
withheld from him.
But newspapers said that Guttenberg already had the ISAF report, which
contained enough information for him to be able to determine that the
air strike was questionable.
There are also conflicting accounts of his dealings with Schneiderhan
and the official, Peter Wichert, suggesting that Guttenberg's account
is not accurate, Spiegel magazine and other reports said.
On Monday, Guttenberg said he would not resign. A spokesman for the
defence ministry said that his meetings with Schneiderhan and Wichert
were confidential.
The spokesman, Steffen Moritz, also reiterated that the two men had
"taken responsibility for information being withheld."
Juergen Trittin, a parliamentary group leader for the opposition
Greens, called on Monday for Guttenberg to fall on his sword, saying
the minister had "knowingly not told the truth".
AFP / Expatica
bademiyansubhanallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-16 14:01:45
SEOUL, Dec. 16 (Xinhua) -- South Korea's Ministry of National
Defense on Wednesday played down threats issued by Afghanistan's rebel
militant group Taliban against the country's planned troop dispatch to
the war-torn Central Asia country.
"It is our assessment that the threat is conventional and is aimed
at stemming the deployment of our troops by stoking opposition within
South Korea," the ministry said in a booklet distributed to local
media, adding that such a threat was well expected, according to
Seoul's Yonhap News Agency.
Taliban insurgents last week said in a statement e-mailed to
international media that Seoul must be ready to face "bad
consequences" if the troops are deployed, a response to the South
Korean government's decision to send up to 350 troops to the country
for two and a half years as part of the U.S.-led reconstruction
program.
According to the plan, waiting to be submitted to the National
Assembly for a parliamentary approval, the troops will be stationed in
Parwan Province, north of Kabul, in order to protect the South Korean
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).
The South Korean government has said the main mission of the
troops will be to guard the PRT base and escort and protect the
activities of the PRT members.
Wednesday's remarks came amid sharply-split views on the dispatch
plan, with peace activists and others including unionized construction
industry workers denouncing what they call a flippant decision.
South Korea in 2007 pulled out of Afghanistan when 23 South Korean
Christian missionaries were held captive by the Taliban, with two of
them killed and the rest released.
Since then, Seoul has only taken the role of providing medical and
vocational training by assisting the United States and only two dozen
South Korean volunteers work inside the U.S. Air Force Base in Bagram,
north of Kabul.
Editor: Li Xianzhi
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/16/content_12655810.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Targeting Afghanistan insurgency 1st big shift in strategy since 2001
December 16, 2009
WASHINGTON — - The U.S. military command has quietly shifted the
mission of clandestine special operations forces in Afghanistan,
senior officials said, in a move that reflects the evolving American
strategy and the pressure on U.S. military leaders to demonstrate
swift results against the Taliban-led insurgency.
Until recently, special operations teams were used almost exclusively
to hunt down al-Qaida leaders. However, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the
top U.S. and allied commander, has ordered the teams to begin
targeting key figures within the Taliban insurgency.
As a result of the shift, the number of raids carried out by such
units as the Army's Delta Force and Navy's SEAL Team Six has more than
quadrupled in recent months. The teams carried out 90 raids in
November, U.S. officials said, compared with 20 last May.
The move marks the first major change in mission for the nation's most
elite military units since they were sent into Afghanistan in the
aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
It comes as the Taliban has tightened its grip on key parts of
Afghanistan, while only a few dozen al-Qaida operatives are thought to
remain.
Nonetheless, the shift could be controversial among some
administration officials and lawmakers who want the U.S. military to
focus primarily on the long-term fight against terrorism and on
eradicating al-Qaida. Senior military leaders, however, believe that
rolling back Taliban gains has become the overriding short-term
priority.
"This is Gen. McChrystal's play," said a senior U.S. official familiar
with the strategy, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They have to
show they can reverse momentum. He has to show he is making headway."
President Barack Obama earlier this month ordered an additional 30,000
troops to Afghanistan, which will bring the U.S. force to about
100,000 next year.
But Obama wants military officials to assess progress in a year and to
begin troop reductions in 2011.
A spokesman for the command in Afghanistan, Col. Wayne Shanks,
declined to discuss specifics of the mission for the special
operations forces, but said their strikes have "increased pressure on
the insurgency."
"We target all insurgent networks who are causing casualties either to
our forces or the Afghan people," Shanks said.
The senior military official said the increased number of raids was
having an effect on the ground. The number of Taliban leaders
interested in laying down arms has begun to rise, officials said.
"The (special operations forces) are arresting the momentum of the
Taliban," the senior military official said. "The SOF guys can go
against the networks. They are losing their leaders."
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-special-forces-1215-1216dec16,0,1679814.story
Sid Harth
Analysts foresee tough year ahead on both fronts
Sean Maroney | ISLAMABAD 16 December 2009
At the start of 2009, Pakistan's government pursued a peace plan with
Taliban militants in and around the Swat Valley, once a holiday
destination.
U.S. President Barack Obama has made Pakistan a key part of his new
strategy in Afghanistan. But as the U.S. and NATO battle Taliban
militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan is facing its own challenges.
Taliban insurgents have launched bomb attacks across the country.
Meanwhile, a political scandal threatens to undermine the government
of President Asif Ali Zardari.
At the start of 2009, Pakistan's government pursued a peace plan with
Taliban militants in and around the Swat Valley, once a holiday
destination.
But the Taliban broke the terms of the deal and advanced in the
greater Swat Valley to within 60 kilometers of the capital,
Islamabad. Taliban fighters conducted public beatings and also closed
down some girls' schools.
Education Minister Mir Hazar Khan Bijrani said the government had to
respond. "So we have no other option but to control the situation
through our law enforcing agencies," he said.
As Pakistani troops descended on the Swat Valley, about two and a half
million people fled the violence.
By mid-2009, the United States commended Pakistan's military for
significant gains in Swat and surrounding districts.
"And right now, finally, the Pakistani army is engaged in a very
significant military offensive against the Taliban," Richard
Holbrooke, Special US Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan said.
But as U.S. and NATO forces faced a growing Taliban insurgency in
neighboring Afghanistan, Washington pressed Islamabad to do more
against militants in the tribal areas who were crossing into
Afghanistan to stage attacks there.
In October, bomb blasts across Pakistan -- on the UN's World food
Program in Islamabad, on the army headquarters in Rawalpindi and on
security forces in Lahore -- kept Pakistan's focus on its own
territory.
Days after, the military announced a major offensive in South
Waziristan against Taliban militants who claimed responsibility for
the attacks.
"Any kind of instability in this region, or in this area, would
radiate or affect instability in the other area," Major General Athar
Abbas, spokesman for Pakistan's army said.
But Washington's top military commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, tells
VOA that Pakistan also needs to target Taliban insurgents, mostly in
North Waziristan, who are using sanctuaries there to attack coalition
forces in Afghanistan. "It's those Taliban that are killing
Americans. It's those Taliban that are killing Afghans. It's those
Taliban that are killing coalition forces from our allies, so it's
going to take pressure on all extremist groups," he stated.
On another front, Pakistan's Supreme Court has begun hearing petitions
challenging an amnesty that shielded President Asif Ali Zardari and
some 8,000 senior government officials from corruption charges.
As president, Mr. Zardari is immune from prosecution. Some analysts
say the government could be further weakened if corruption cases are
reopened against those close to him.
"Political instability is the last thing that can happen in Pakistan
because when [a] political crisis occurs, [the] economy goes down.
And these two things are unaffordable when a country is facing a
severe terrorist threat," Ishtiaq Ahmad said.
President Zardari recently relinquished some of his powers, including
control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. He handed that to Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
2010 looks to be another difficult year for Pakistan, with an ongoing
fight against insurgents and court challenges to the country's
leaders.
Sid Harth
of the Afghan Taliban said on Wednesday it will soon release a video
of its American captive.
Published: December 16, 2009 17:14h
DUBAI, December 16, 2009 (AFP) - The media arm of the Afghan Taliban
said on Wednesday it will soon release a video of its American
captive, apparently referring to soldier Bowe Bergdahl who was seized
in June, a US monitoring group reported.
Al-Imara Media Productions announced the forthcoming release on an
affiliated website, the SITE Intelligence group said, adding that the
video is entitled: "One of Their People Testified."
Bergdahl, the first American soldier to be captured by the Taliban
since the invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 2001, went missing on
June 30.
The Taliban released video footage in July in which Bergdahl said he
had been captured when he lagged behind his patrol.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/taliban-to-release-video-of-us-captive_286508
bademiyansubhanallah
Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:55am GMT
Afghan storm to hang over Merkel in 2010 KABUL (Reuters) - President
Hamid Karzai has postponed the long awaited announcement of a new
cabinet until Saturday, requiring extra time to finalise his list, a
palace spokesman said on Wednesday.
Karzai, inaugurated last month for a second full term after winning a
fraud-marred election in August, had said last week he would provide a
list of ministers to parliament by Wednesday.
Spokesman Siyamak Herawi said the cabinet was delayed while Karzai
sorts out his candidates for two ministries.
Karzai, leader of Afghanistan since Taliban's ouster in 2001, is under
intense pressure from the West to keep technocrats in important
positions, but also may need to offer posts to former guerrilla chiefs
and their allies who supported his re-election.
Candidates will have to be approved by parliament, which could take
several weeks.
Karzai promised at his inauguration last month that he would appoint
competent and honest ministers.
Western officials have publicly said the cabinet lineup is a first
vital test to show whether he is serious about combating corruption,
which undermines his government's credibility and feeds the Taliban
insurgency.
Karzai won the election in part by receiving the support of powerful
regional chieftains. Diplomats say they believe he promised cabinet
posts in return, although they are cautiously hopeful he will keep
capable people in important posts.
Washington says it will not give money to ministries that spend its
aid cash unless it trusts the minister in charge. U.S. Secretary of
Defence Robert Gates has endorsed the security ministers in charge of
the Afghan army and police.
President Barack Obama announced this month 30,000 extra U.S. troops
to join nearly 110,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. A
perception in the West that Karzai's government is weak and corrupt
has eroded public support for the mission.
(Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Peter Graff and Sanjeev
Miglani)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BF1IW20091216?sp=true