Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
McChrystal Strategy Shifts to Raids - and Wali Karzai
WASHINGTON - Gen. Stanley McChrystal's team once talked openly about the need to remove Ahmed Wali Karzai, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother and the most powerful man in Kandahar, from power.
Ahmed Wali Karzai (centre) is seen talking on the phone as he sits with supporters celebrating the re-election victory of his brother President Hamid Karzai in Kandahar, last November. (AFP/File/Banaras Khan) Last October, as reports of Wali Karzai's role in the opium trade were circulating, McChrystal's intelligence chief Gen. Michael T. Flynn said, "If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves."
"The only way to clean up Chicago," Flynn declared, "is to get rid of Capone." The parallel between the legendary crime boss and Wali Karzai could hardly have been clearer.
But by the end of March, Dexter Filkins was reporting in the New York Times that U.S. officials had decided that Wali Karzai "will be allowed to stay in place".
That complete reversal on Karzai was the result of a decision by the U.S. military to deemphasise the much-touted promise of governance reform in the Kandahar operation and focus instead on Special Operations Forces (SOF) raids targeted against suspected Taliban leaders living in Kandahar City - operations for which McChrystal needs intelligence being provided by Karzai.
McChrystal's shift in emphasis toward the targeted raids against the Taliban was undoubtedly accelerated by the message from the Barack Obama administration in March that he had to demonstrate progress in his counterinsurgency strategy by the end of December 2010 rather than the mid-2011 deadline for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
That earlier deadline, first reported by the Washington Post Mar. 31, was confirmed this month by U.S. Gen. Frederick Hodge, the director of operations for all of southern Afghanistan. "Our mission is to show irreversible momentum by the end of 2010 - that's the clock I'm using," Hodge told The Times of London
The Pentagon's report on the last six months of the war, written in late March and early April, reflected that shift from governance reform to night raids. It failed to mention McChrystal's "population-centric" strategy as a factor in putting pressure on the Taliban but touted the "removal" of many "lower-level" Taliban commanders, mainly by "special operations forces".
After a few weeks of watching the results of the Marja operation, the officials of McChrystal's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) NATO command conceded that the Afghan government had taken too long to put representatives of relevant ministries into the two key districts of Helmand province. They doubted that it would do any better in Kandahar, as The Times reported May 11.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who frequently registers the latest thinking of the military leadership, wrote a column Apr. 1 clearly reflecting the downgrading of governance reform in the McChrystal war plan for Kandahar and the new emphasis on targeting the Taliban.
"Shaking up the power structure might put the United States on the side of the Pashtun man in the street," wrote Ignatius, "but it would open up a power vacuum that could be exploited by the Taliban."
For U.S. commanders, Ignatius revealed, "There isn't time for risky experiments in Kandahar."
What Ignatius didn't say is that McChrystal had already ordered a major intensification of SOF raids in Kandahar city and that those raids are dependent primarily on intelligence supplied by organisations controlled by Wali Karzai.
In an interview with The Times published May 7, Karzai boasted that he alone has supplied "the majority of intelligence in this region", adding, "I'm passing tonnes of information to them."
A former NATO official had confirmed that reality a few weeks earlier. "Most of our intelligence comes directly or indirectly from him," said the official, according to TIME magazine on Mar. 19.
Neither the ISAF commanders nor U.S. SOF commanders have well-developed intelligence networks of their own in Kandahar.
Karzai has dominated the flow of intelligence to NATO forces by gaining control over both the police and official Afghan intelligence agency in the province, according to a new study of the power structure in Kandahar.
The study, published last month by the pro-war Institute for the Study of War, shows how Karzai completed his consolidation of political control over the national police in Kandahar after using the Karzai private militia used by the CIA, the Kandahar Strike Force, to kill the province police chief and the chief of criminal investigation, who had been independent of his influence, in a June 2009 gunfight.
Even more important, Karzai controls the Kandahar branch of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), which combines the intelligence and secret police agencies, as the study reveals. NDS has by far the largest network of informants in the province and has long taken the lead in carrying out the raids against the Taliban in Kandahar City, because of the ineffectiveness of the national police.
In an e-mail to IPS, a spokesman for McChrystal, Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, acknowledged that the command accepts intelligence from Karzai, and said it would be "foolish" to refuse it.
Sholtis said he could not comment on how much weight the ISAF command put on intelligence from Karzai but asserted that the command has "multiple methods and sources for collecting intelligence" in the province, and that, "We evaluate all human sources with respect to self-interest or bias."
ISAF can presumably draw on Afghan Army intelligence in the province, but its assets are believed to be minimal compared with that of the NDS. The command also uses information from drone reconnaissance aircraft to supplement what it gets from Karzai-controlled networks.
Reliance on drones for targeting, however, leads to constant mistakes by U.S. troops. Carlotta Gall reported in the New York Times Mar. 26 that drone strikes had killed farmers digging ditches and bringing goods home from market on three different occasions in recent weeks.
The ISAF command's dependence on Karzai for intelligence allows him to use U.S. power against his political enemies. TIME's Tim McGirk reported Mar. 19 that critics in Kandahar said Karzai had threatened to call down NATO airstrikes or night raids by U.S. SOF units on any tribal elders who defied him.
Karzai is widely believed to have used raids by security forces under his control to target a number of tribal opponents, according to the Institute's study. Karzai is deeply engaged in intervening in tribal politics across the province, creating new alliances and making new enemies, the analysis said.
The reaffirmation of ties between the U.S. and Karzai ensures that the whole military effort in the province is locked into Karzai's political strategy for maintaining his grip on power. But McChrystal, the former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and Afghanistan, has made it clear he is ready to sacrifice the possibility for political change in order to be able to do what he does best.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
- Posted in
22 Comments so far
Show All'Gen. Michael T. Flynn said, "If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves."
"The only way to clean up Chicago," Flynn declared, "is to get rid of Capone."'
Was Flynn talking about Capone or Rahm?
Night Raids and Air Strikes are what alienate Afghans the most.
Is this article saying Mc Meth is in Afghanistan because he enjoys doing Night Raids for the current Political Boss, Wali Karzai?
Leave Afghanistan and send money for hospitals and schools forget everything else.
- Leave Afghanistan... -
And the way to make the US military do this, is to end their insane mission.
Public Law 107-40. Congress declared war against enemies to be named later.
Bush named al-Qaeda.
The US military was given the mission to 'prevent future terrorism' by our enemies.
This mission cannot be completed, and thus there is never an exit strategy.
Do something about Public Law 107-40 and this insanity will end.
When al-Qaeda and 'future terrorists' are no longer the enemy*, then we can change our weapons into plowshares and hospitals and schools.
* I understand why politicians ignore this law - they gain nothing by being responsible for their behavior.
I understand why the MIC ignores this law - they make loads of money.
I, therefore, don't understand why Progressives continue to behave like politicians and the MIC.
Ignoring this law only benefits war-mongers - they have benefited for 9 years.
So, let me see if I understand this. The world's most powerful military can't beat the Afghan resistance with "shock and awe," so now we're going to try to take guerilla warfare into the land of the masters of guerilla warfare. Oh, yeah! That'll work!
I hardly consider a "little" cluster bombing back in 2002 and kicking in doors at midnight "shock and awe". As Katerine's comments above strongly hint, the Karzai brothers are becoming the new Saddam Hussein. As in Iraq, no matter the amount of violence, that doesn't greatly effect oil flow or drug flow, all is well and going as planned...as planned as mafia management can get -- it's life on the edge of death every day, how exciting, the only way to go...weeeeeeeeee!
No, not "shock and awe" on the scale desired by its proponents, but still and all, escalation of troop numbers, bombing, and kicking in doorways would terrorize my neighborhood. I guess my main point was that going toe-to-toe on the ground in Afghanistan will never work, but that's a truism almost as old as history, so I guess I really had nothing to say--just sarcasm.
The USA cannot create a democratic government in the USA but wants to in Afghanistan.
Hey Glenn, that's the bottom line in my book too.
For those who haven't read Jon Krakaeur's book on Pat Tillman ("Where Men Win Glory"), McCrystal was part of the chain of command that covered up the friendly fire incident that killed Tillman, then exploited his death for PR reasons. So, the "man" in command of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan is a known, lying sack of shit who doesn't give a rat's ass about the soldiers under his command. McCrystal is to military leadership as BP is to environmentalism. Not that the U.S. military has anyone better.
BINGO FastEddie.
McChrystal is ready to do what he does best. He wants to kill people & blow stuff up.
I like the BP reference.
If the EPA would impose "discretionary debarment", which it has the authority to do, McChrystal and the troops would quickly run out of fuel for the war toys.
Bring the troops home. The troops are at risk due to McChrystal's ego.
The President loves that word "Opportunity". Here is a huge one. Get rid of BP and get out of all wars as a result. There may not be a better "Opportunity" come his way.
"McChrystal's intelligence chief Gen. Michael T. Flynn said, 'If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves.'"
Darling General Mike, I got news. Your boss is a thug, and his civilian boss is a thug. A great percentage of the leadership of this country are a bunch of thugs, and just about all of the leadership of the previous administration were/are a bunch of thugs. And the bankers and the hot shots of the investment houses and the leadership of the Federal Reserve are a bunch of thugs. And the corporate heads and their minions from Big Pharma, Big Agri-Chemical, Big Oil et al. are a bunch of thugs.
And all that Afghanistan opium, and the cocaine from Columbia and whatever from Mexico, you don't think anyone connected with and tight with the U.S. administration and the C.I.A. and various government officials and wealthy private citizens, elected, appointed or cozy with the top, are not connected with "drug-running" profits. The largest market for these drugs are U.S. citizens, whether prescription or illegal.
Face it, fella', you'd be better off wearing a nice white uniform selling popsicles from a Good Humor truck [if they are still around] in Brooklyn than being in the business you're in. If you're concerned about Karzai's brother dealing in drugs now, what happened to the rest of the nine-ten years during this U.S. attack/invasion/occupation This was not known before ... for how long?
And with the plans for guerilla warfare in Khandahar and likely some drone bombing, how many Afghan civilians are going to get killed this time? Winning hearts and minds again, eh? And you're worried about appearances?
You work for a THUGGIN' U.S. Army, General Michael T. Flynn. I'd let your conscience wrestle with that one rather than how it looks to the Afghan people if we don't take out Karzai's brother and his friends because they deal in opium, Afghan opium.
GET OUT! GET OUT! GET OUT! That's the ONLY ANSWER!!!
/cm
Cee Miracles
I was always taught that "Military Intelligence" was a contradiction in terms. Military pencils have NO eraser.
The drug connection has always been a big part of the invasion. The US doesn't intend to stop it, but control it, just as the US wants control of oil.
I don't for one minute believe that Wall Street is drug free. If the Wall Street bankers & traders had to pee in a cup, they would fail the test. Wall Street will keep its drug trafficking protected. Count on it.
Someone already said it,
American's new strategy should be
GET OUT, GET OUT, GET OUT ,GET OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!
take care of business at home,
it is almost tooooo late, if not tooo late !!!!!
Obama.......quit listening to The Devil !!!!!!!
Ah yes, the United States of America, wallowing in the filth, with the vermin again! PHOOEY!
So McChrystal is Wali Karzai's hit man now?
No wonder that the 'raids' (drug hits) are conducted under the cover of darkness.
"The reaffirmation of ties between the US and Karzai ensures that the whole military effort in the province is locked into Karzai's political strategy for maintaining his grip on power."
This sad, self-defeating refrain has been sung before. There was Chiang Kai Chek hanging on in Taiwan, and the Shah in Iran for years and years. First Diem, then Thieu and Madame Nhu in South Vietnam. Pinochet in Chile. Mobutu in the Congo. Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti. Noriega in Panama. Suharto in Indonesia. Marcos in the Phillippines. Uribe in Colombia. The list goes on and on.
A few held onto power and died peacefully in opulent presidential bed chambers. Most however were killed, deposed, or driven into exile, often when the mutually exploitative relationship with Washington finally turned impossibly sour. Hitch your wagon to a star? When that star falls from the sky, your policy invariably goes down in flames alongside it.
"But McChrystal, the former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and Afghanistan, has made it clear he is ready to sacrifice the possibility for political change in Afghanistan in order to be able to do what he does best."
What McChrystal does best is run death squads like Maliki's shadowy sectarian militia network in occupied Iraq, patterned after Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. And since when does an active duty military field commander exercise political decision making judgment of this magnitude to begin with? Since when does the Pentagon decide which nations can enjoy the possibility of political change, and which nations have to sacrifice that possibility?
As Gareth Porter's article notes, the Obama administration did a 180-degree about face on partnering with Hamid and Walli Karzai in less than four months. In October of 2009, they were hopelessly corrupt thugs enmeshed in opium trafficking, ripping off the federal treasury, and paying bribes to the Taliban to let convoys avoid attack. By March, 2010, the Karzai brothers had become indispensible sources of reliable intelligence, suddenly the US government's best hope for stabilizing and democratizing Afghanistan. When it looks like the music is about to stop, you better dance with the girl you took to the dance, as the old saying goes.
"Perhaps the most severe competition in our government today is between the Special Forces in the DOD and the CIA over who runs clandestine operations." - Historian Chalmers Johnson, in interview with journalist Harry Kreisler posted in Counterpunch, 5/6/10
It sure looks like McChrystal's JSOC warrior spooks (and not the CIA) are squarely in charge of running the big, bloody show that is about to open in Kandahar. If Uncle Sam can't win hearts and minds, then we'll just have to settle for doing what soldiers do best.
Bill from Saginaw
Wali is nothing more than a public relations problem bcs they had no problem doing business with him before it hit the fan and "building democracies over seas " now that's a sick joke AND IGNORANT .
It's first about building a PERMANENT OCCUPATION and installing a puppet government whether it's Karzai (who stole the election ) or somebody else .
First you have to read what Obama adviser Brzezinski about " controlling Eurasia will lead to subordination of Africa " which means a military take over of the regions bcs of their RESOURCES and DRUGS . Only an idiot thinks while watching U.S. troops marching by the poppy fields that they(U.S. Intel) are not participating and profiting from the Multi-Billion Dollar Heroin trade, especially when Russia offered to ERADICATE all poppy fields in Afghanistan , REFUSED by UN / U.S.
McChrystal is NO DIFFERENT from any other occupier like Genghis Khan , Alexander the mass murderer or the British Empire , except he has the advantage of massive PSYOPS , the backing of the complicit U.S. media and BILLIONS of dollars to double talk the world about "stabilization" "democracy " and the manufactured threat .
KARZAI stole the election and the U.S. had no problem and by default if his brother in a DRUG TRADER that makes him involved . You expect war lords and corrupt leaders to behave that way , but the U.S. has no excuse .
Too bad that McChrystal's random attention-getting moves kill people. I wish he would tattoo himself, smoke crack, engage in massive body piercing, breakdance and send our cash directly to the armaments industry without buying anything. It would be better that way. Just showtime, but no deaths.
Joe
On one hand, we are giving (not lending but giving) Mexican President Felipe Calderon at least $1.5 billion to "supposedly" fight drug cartels.
Over in Afghanistan, we are working with Karzai's brother, who is a known drug lord, but that's perfectly alright as long as it suits our means.
In days of olde, that might have been referred to as hypocrisy, but no more. That kind of rational thinking is for those who still believe in taking the high ground.
Also, someone mentioned in a comment before mine that this thing is all about McChrystle's ego. Does anyone think for a minute that this whole thing is not all about ego, whether it be Bush, Obama, or whoever happens to be pulling the strings in Washington at the time.
I right now cannot think of one Republican that I would want to be elected president in 2012, but as a matter of principle, I believe that Obama should be defeated in his bid for re-election. He does not deserve to go another four years destroying this country. Let someone else be given a chance and I'm sure there are many that are qualified.
Of course, we could elect Sarah Palin in 2012 and then have another election in 2014 cause odds are she'll just drop out halfway through her term of office just like she deserted the governership in Alaska.
I know that there are a lot of members of the Senate and House of Representatives who would love to be president, but why does it have to be some elected official? Why not elect someone like Rush Limbaugh, who we all know is THE authority on all matters national and international.
Face it, this country's going to hell in a hand-basket, in more ways that just our military involvement in the Middle East. Why not just step up the pace.
So what's new? Today we use Karzai to target the Taliban. Tomorrow we'll use the Taliban to target Karzai. Principles be damned. Whatever gets us into the position of control we seek will be the order of the day. Don't forget: our only reason for being in Afghanistan is to deliver the women thereof from the patriarchy. It's always good to have a humanitarian goal in mind when we proceed to kill people.