EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
More Troops, More Worries, Less Consensus on Afghanistan
Even Washington's precise war aims in Afghanistan more than seven years after U.S.-backed forces chased the Taliban out of the country appear subject to continuing debate, as, in the face of what virtually all analysts and officials concede is a deteriorating situation, the Pentagon is actively downgrading the Bush administration's hopes of ushering in a thriving democracy to something far less ambitious.
An Afghan girl sits next to aid for her family in Kabul on January 23. (AFP/File/Massoud Hossaini) That was made abundantly clear last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress "to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan. If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience, and money," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
And while Gates insisted that Washington faces a "long slog" to achieve even its minimal aims, fears that Afghanistan could become a "new Vietnam", a deadly quagmire in which already overstretched U.S. forces could become bogged down in an unwinnable war, have gained sudden new currency in the mass media.
Indeed, the cover story in the latest edition of 'Newsweek' magazine is headlined, "Obama's Vietnam: The analogy isn't exact. But the war in Afghanistan is starting to look disturbingly familiar."
Public statements about the current situation by senior Pentagon officials, including Gates, have been grim. A Pentagon report released Monday noted that last spring and summer saw the "highest levels of violence" since the U.S. intervention in 2001, and that 132 U.S. troops were killed last year, up from 82 in 2007.
"You all have been covering recent events in Afghanistan long enough to know that the situation there grows increasingly perilous every day," the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, told foreign reporters at the top of a special briefing here last week.
"Suicide and IED (improvised explosive device) attacks are up, some say as much as 40 percent over the last year," he went on. "The Taliban grows bolder implanting fear and intimidating the Afghan people, and the flow of militants across the border with Pakistan continues."
The U.S. has about 33,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to Afghanistan. These are augmented by another 30,000 troops from other NATO countries, of which, however, only British, Canadian, and Dutch contingents are fully cleared for combat in largely Pashtun areas in the east and south where the Taliban and its allies are strongest.
Commanders in the field, led by U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, have requested an additional 30,000 U.S. troops over the next six to nine months, a figure that Mullen echoed during last week's press briefing.
Gates has taken a more cautious approach, telling senators last week that 10,000 to 12,000 troops - or the two to three brigades that Obama said were necessary during his presidential campaign - are likely to be deployed over the next six months. At the same time, he said he would be "deeply sceptical" of further increases, adding that Washington expected the Afghan military (currently about 100,000 troops) and police to take a stronger role.
The new administration is also hoping that other NATO members, which were repeatedly pressed by the Bush administration for more support, will provide more troops - for both combat and accelerated training of Afghan forces.
Obama is sending a high-powered delegation led by Vice President Joe Biden; Obama's national security adviser, Gen. James Jones; and his special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, former Amb Richard Holbrooke, to Munich next week in the first of a series of international meetings culminating in NATO's 60th anniversary summit in April in Strasbourg where he hopes to secure new commitments.
But, despite all the goodwill generated abroad by Obama's election, public opinion both in Canada and Europe is running strongly against new deployments, according to recent surveys there, and analysts here warn that Washington is likely to be disappointed by the response.
Meanwhile, Holbrooke, working with the chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), Gen. David Petraeus, as well as Washington's new ambassador-designate to Kabul, ret. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who has served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, will take part in a comprehensive review of U.S. strategy that is unlikely to be concluded before April.
The review is aimed at both defining U.S. short- and long-term goals in Afghanistan and elaborating a strategy to achieve them.
The one goal on which virtually all policy-makers and analysts are agreed is that expressed by Gates during last week's hearing: "To prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and its allies."
But how to achieve even that minimal goal - given obvious constraints on resources and the secure bases that the Taliban continue to enjoy in Pakistan's frontier areas - remains the subject of considerable debate.
The dominant view for now is that increasing security for the civilian population, particularly in the Pashtun areas where the Taliban is strongest - much as the U.S. "surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops purportedly accomplished in Iraq - is essential. Success should deprive the Taliban of much of its popular support and persuade "reconcilable" leaders to negotiate with the government and reduce the level of violence.
In addition, pressure on President Hamid Karzai to address the corruption that has become endemic under his administration and renewed efforts to persuade - in part through significantly enhanced training - the Pakistani military to conduct an effective counter-insurgency campaign against its home-grown Taliban in the frontier areas, as well as the al Qaeda leadership that is based there, are also seen as indispensable.
But critics, of which there are a growing number, are sceptical. Among other things, they question comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan, noting, among other things, that, even if 30,000 troops are added to the existing deployment in Afghanistan, the ratio of troops - both foreign and indigenous - to people will remain substantially below the ratio in Iraq, and far below the ratio recommended by conventional counter-insurgency doctrine.
There is also disagreement - even within the military itself - over how best to deploy those troops: whether close to the rugged Pakistan border to try to block supply and infiltration routes; or in cities, towns, and villages to provide "security" to the population, as the Surge purportedly did in Iraq.
In a new report released Tuesday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Gilles Dorronsoro, a French expert on South Asia, argued that adding troops would actually be counter-productive because the mere presence of foreign soldiers in Pashtun areas has fueled the Taliban's resurgence and that the best way to weaken it is to reduce military confrontations. In that respect, "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops."
Indeed, Dorronsoro argues, as do other critics, that most effective way to ensure that Afghan territory is not used as a base to attack the U.S. is to "de-link" the Taliban from al Qaeda, "which is based mostly in Pakistan."
"We will be in a much better position to fight al Qaeda if we don't have to fight the Afghans," he said. "We have to stop fighting the Taliban because it is the wrong enemy."
Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
20 Comments so far
Show AllLike a bad movie series, we now have "Quagmire III: Afghanistan Eats the Empire." Of course, "Quagmire II: FUBAR Iraq," hasn't ended yet, but who can forget the original: "Quagmire: Vietnam Domino"? The U.S. Military is to successful military operations as Hollywood is to cinematic quality. Mediocre people doing horrendously expensive but mediocre things, undertaking ill-considered ventures causing far more harm than good. When was the last time you felt proud to be an American?
America is fighting the Taliban for control of Afghanistan, 'the central front in the war on terror'.
America is trying to destroy al-Qaeda, the enemy in the 'war on terror'.
America's goal in this 'war on terror', according to Congress's words, is 'preventing future terrorism' by those groups.
Since this goal is unachievable by military means, America is stuck, stuck, stuck. It cannot win and won't accept defeat.
What else do you need to know?
America will remain stuck until the people demand that we do something other than 'more of the same'; more troops, more money and more death.
I hope to continue seeing articles such as this one. We need to bring this insane and unwinnable war into the light of day for all to see.
As Malalai Joya, the Afghan Member of Parliament, named after a heroine of Afghan history, put it:
I think that no nation can donate liberation to another nation. Liberation is not money to be donated; it should be achieved in a country by the people themselves. The ongoing developments in Afghanistan and Iraq prove this claim. People of other countries only can give us a helping hand and support.
Here's an idea whose time has come -
Congress started this madness by enacting Public Law 107-40, which authorized the President to use military force against those deemed responsible for 9/11 (popularly termed 'war on terror').
Congress must rescind this law and end the authorization.
The President will not willingly give up power to use the military, it must be taken out of his hands.
Congress must end the war on terror so that America can do something intelligent for a change.
Into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred . . .
Has anyone seen any concrete proof that these groups are responsible for 9/11?
I keep hearing that old canard in the back of my mind 'Trust us, trust U.S.'
Let's face the facts - so far, Obama is just another Bush - albeit with a pretty face and eloquence. (The MIC corporate oligarchy handlers must have learned from putting Bush in power).
Locust, what makes you think that Congress is NOT controlled by the MIC as well? Remember that almost every Congressional district is involved in the MIC via jobs, bases, other spending, etc.
But I could be wrong !
The reasons for the war in Afghanistan are almost as varied as those in Iraq - in fact our government (Harper) has gone out of his way to try to convince us that this Jeckle Hyde mission is mainly about peacekeeping!
Have any of you seen "Kesterson At War" yet?
"U.S. photojournalist Scott Kesterson spent 15 months embedded with Canadian troops in Afghanistan in an effort to understand the conflict"
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/kesterson_at_war.html
Included in the footage are short accounts by soldier as to how it feels to kill someone.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years,
- What? Interfere with America's own self destruction? Doubt it!
If al-Qaida were smart, they would move to Israel, then we'd have to invade Israel....
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Hooray for the president of Kyrgyzstan if he, in effect, has plans to close the U.S. base in that country.
See what a visit from the Bush boy Lord Petraeus can achieve.
Congratulations to Russia, also, for matching the American contribution to Kyrgyzstan ($150 million apiece).
Boobirds to those who see all such machinations exclusively in terms of Russia wishing to purify its sphere of influence.
Kudos to anyone who helps the U.S. become a more reasonable country NOT with military bases all over the place the better to perform American "mischief" (a mild term for endless American expense combined with American-backed and performed bloodshed again and again).
The fact is, as the American author/historian Gore Vidal has pointed out, we're not good at foreign country adventurism and are even worse at "occupation," the best result of which can be simply to piss people off.
A closing in Kyrgysztan, it is said, will lead to more slaughter in the Khuyber Pass (all of it with historic precedent of course).
The more introduction of American forces in Afghanistan by whichever of available routes will lead to more endless war no more enlightened than that of George W. Bush.
Not even Secretary of Defence Gates is optimistic about American prospects.
So how about a little force of character here? What good is our presence in Afghanistan when so clearly our presence is needed at home?
Let's pound the Vietnam message home. It is in the MSM; let's take advantage of the opportunity and keep it alive. Letters to editors, congress etc.
Paul Siemering
I do not know which of Obama's advisors told him "war on terror" was a really smart idea, and should be continued and expanded. Especially in Afghanistan, whose long suffering people cannot remember the last time they knew peace.
keeping Gates around was also not a great idea, and it says a lot about Obama's entourage that this bush holdover is
one of his brighter bulbs. Not bright enough though.
we must declare the fraudulent, delusional "war on terror" over, and get out of Afghanistan.
Dear Barack:
Please leave the Afghan and Pakistani people alone. They never did anything to us. If you want Osama, do it with a police action using our high tech multibillion dollar spying equipment.
In early 1980, the CIA supplied the now called Taliban with 65.000 tons of US made weapons, to searve their agenda, and when Bush Jr, came to office, Stirred them up,- but against us with his Demands, especially concerning the oil pipe line. The Taliban wishes to live in the past ideology, much like some of our Christian Fundalmentalist, who wish we moved back 100 years. There have always been terrorist, and in all countries, including ours. Especially ones like the KKK,& Tim MacVeigh. Many would call Bush a terrorist, for deliberately lying to invade Iraq, who was no threat to us. Saddam, worked with Bush sr. and the CIA, was his friend for 8 years, or rather used him, until no longer needed, at the time of the war in the Gulf.
The men flying those Suicide airplanes into New York were mostly from
Saudi Arabia. We are in Aphganistan for one reason, for the protection and
maybe keep the undergound oil pipe lines.Karzai the premier of that country
belongs to the Bush Family Corporation called, "The Carlyle Group", and he spent
to much time at the Bush Compound in Kennebunk-port in Maine getting brainwashed
by Daddy Bush. If Obama is being led by Gates another member of the Bush Clan
he is in deep doo-doo. Obama's inexperience is showing all over the place,
including his failed efforts to get us some recovery from the collapse of the
economy. The approval of all those Billions of Dollars that already went to the
Banking industry with no direction from the president or congress is simply
more proof of his inexperience. Very little of the new Bailout seems to be
headed in the economy to create jobs for the unemployed.
Most of those Ivy-league graduates are so far removed from reality they simply
do not have a clue, they are like Chris Dodd and that bunch.
Bring on Ralph Nader..
Afghanistan will be a boondoggle for Obama that can only end in more misery and destruction.
Ta'alik
Noise, noise , noise. There is some good stuff here. But the main thing is get out of Afghanistan NOW - trying to impose democracy on a tribal system is stupid from the gitgo - it only underlines our total misunderstanding of another culture: bribery is a way of life there - that's how things are done - who needs democracy! Get out of there, and more important get the corporations noses out of there and then we can get on with important stuff - like getting our country together again.
"despite all the goodwill generated abroad by Obama's election, public opinion both in Canada and Europe is running strongly against new deployments"
Why does Jim Lobe believe that global goodwill generated by O'Bama's election should give any sort of license to imperial advance? Maybe he is projecting US delusions globally.
"to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan"
The Gates quote doubly illuminates the neck-deep empire hubris. From that it's obvious that the USA's national security no longer figures into its flaming imperial agenda. So Gates warns only that it's going to cost too much treasure! Nothing at all about the poisoning of humanity! How much longer do we have to share citizenship with this network of snakes?
"To prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and its allies."
But Afghanistan IS BEING USED as a base for terrorists and extremists - of the elite variety - operating out of Washington. They pretend there is a real enemy out there but it's only a projection of themselves in the mirror.
Since I only look at the pictures,it seems to me a modeling agency could do quite well in the mid east.Those people who don't have sun damage are some of the most beautiful people I've ever seen.I guess a talent agency could profit as well.So throw out the guns.
My observation also.