US Ambassador to Afghanistan and a former commander in the country opposes troop surge
lo yeeOn
US envoy opposed to Afghan surge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8356094.stm
The US ambassador in Kabul has written to the White House arguing
against sending thousands more American troops to Afghanistan.
In a leaked cable, Karl Eikenberry expressed doubts about the
competence of President Hamid Karzai's government.
The message arrived amid intense debate over strategy, with President
Obama yet to make a decision on troop numbers.
This dramatic intervention would put the envoy at odds with generals
wanting reinforcements, correspondents say.
On Wednesday, Mr Obama held his eighth meeting in a series aimed at
refocusing Afghan policy.
Mr Eikenberry, a former US commander in Afghanistan, also raised
concerns about corruption within the Afghan government.
He said it was "not a good idea" to send more troops, the BBC has been
told.
. . .
This piece of news is on top of the news of the stunning protest
resignation of Colonel Matthew Hoh, who worked under Eikenberry in
Afghanistan and had talked with the Ambassador about his analysis of
the war. Hoh's words, as reported by the Washington Post, could be
summarized in these sentences:
Our war fuels insurgency in Afghanistan.
The administration's stated purpose for the war is wrong.
And the war is not winnable.
Furthermore, he had to resign in order to let the American people
know the truth about this war so that they could have the needed
conviction to call their Congressional representatives to stop the
war.
It is the case that in both the UK and the US, a majority of the
voters are against the war, and have been for some time now. I
believe that the latest number in the UK is something like 64%
believing that the war is unwinnable, up from 57% in July.
And let's not forget that Obama was elected president because the
voters perceived him as the candidate most likely to end our foreign
wars, not just the war in Iraq, which continues to have tens of
thousands of US troops sitting in a dozen of large military forward
operatin bases. So, for those who voted for Obama for this reason,
should let him know that not ending the wars is not right, that he's
making a mockery of our votes and therefore our democratic ideal by
continuing the wars. And it's even more wrong to escalate the wars.
And these wars are very expensive to finance as we are already so
strapped in funds that Americans can't find jobs, can't afford to get
sick, and are given education supported by scant resources, a social
condition which runs directly counter to the ideals of the Democratic
Party, if not to those of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh or
Senator Joseph Lieberman.
If it is good news for these warmonger politicians, political pundits,
and active generals like General McChrystal, then it is certainly bad
news for most of the American people who are seeing all the cherished
American dreams chipped away by the ongoing wars.
lo yeeOn
========
And just last Saturday (7 November 2009), BBC reported:
Afghans {working with US forces} die in 'Nato air strike'
At least eight Afghans working with US forces have been killed in a
Nato air strike in north-western Afghanistan, the defence ministry in
Kabul says.
Nato confirms an air strike was ordered and is investigating whether
it was the cause of the deaths on Friday.
It was launched as US and Afghan forces reportedly came under
insurgent attack during search operations in Badghis province for two
missing US soldiers. Five Americans and 18 Afghans were also wounded
on Friday.
Nato said the casualties occurred "during a joint operation that
involved multiple engagements over several hours".
'Important mission'
The Afghan defence ministry said a base housing coalition troops and
Afghan security forces was mistakenly hit by the air strike.
Four Afghan soldiers, three police and another person believed to
have been an interpreter were killed.
A spokesperson for the Nato force, US Navy Capt Jane Campbell, said:
"We are saddened by the loss of life and injuries sustained during
this very important mission."
ANALYSIS
Andrew North, BBC News, Kabul
It will be embarrassing for the US-led force if this does prove to be
friendly-fire - coming just days after the controversy and criticism
directed at Afghan security forces after five British troops were
shot dead by a policemen they had been training.
One question that may be asked in this case is whether tighter rules
on the use of what is known as 'close air support', laid down by the
US commander General Stanley McChrystal, could have contributed.
He ordered the changes because of mounting anger among Afghans over
civilian casualties caused by air strikes.
If Nato troops come under insurgent attack, in most cases they are
now only supposed to call for an air strike if they are in danger of
being over-run.
But this means insurgents are likely to be a lot closer by the time
the order is made - therefore increasing the chance of aircraft
thousands of feet above hitting the wrong target.