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'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Throwing Darts for a Mission in Afghanistan
In yesterday's Washington Post, Bob Woodward, writing about General Stanley McChrystal, reported that "the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns, in an urgent" assessment of the war, "that he needs more forces within the next year" or the U.S.-led war "will likely result in failure." Quoting McChrystal, Woodward wrote, "without more forces ... defeat is likely." Woodward reported that McChrystal's "call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory."[i]
Yet, on the same day as Woodward's report in the Post, the Associated Press reported that another strategy altogether is under consideration at the White House, which "is considering expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan," and that "the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes."[ii]
It thus seems that while McChrystal's strategy is focused on getting more troops to Afghanistan to "protect Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory," President Obama's strategy is to kill al-Qaeda insurgents in Pakistan with drones.
Furthermore, McChrystal wrote that "without a new strategy, the mission [in Afghanistan] should not be resourced"--that is, additional troops and money should not be committed to the war in Afghanistan. And President Obama likewise said only last week (according to Woodward) that he will not send more troops to Afghanistan until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."
It thus appears that as of yesterday (September 21, 2009), there is little agreement between the military commander in Afghanistan and the president about military strategy in Afghanistan. This being the case, and given the standards of escalation stipulated by both President Obama and General McChrystal-the requirement of a clear strategy-no additional troops should be sent, or money spent, on the war in Afghanistan.
Also, Obama's strategy of bombing al-Qaeda in Pakistan lies outside the U.N. Security Council's mandate for the U.S.-NATO ISAF operations in Afghanistan, which is described on the NATO Web site as follows:
In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF's main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping.[iii]
At least McChrystal's memorandum on Afghanistan to Defense Secretary Gates (and by extension to President Obama) outlines a mission that lies within ISAF's Security Council mandate,[iv] while the president's reported goal of regularizing the bombing of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan does not.
Finally, about the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, which McChrystal heads, he candidly reported that, after eight years of ISAF operations, "many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating," and "we face not only a resilient and growing insurgency" but "a crisis of confidence among Afghans."
Given the apparent disarray on strategy between the White House and its commander in Afghanistan, and even looking at the war in Afghanistan from the narrow perspectives of the political and military leaders in Washington, it is hard to believe that a coherent military strategy for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban is imminent, or even possible. Or how the always disastrous but dependable eventuality-a politically timid American president escalating yet another long and brutal war-will bring Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the United States any closer to peace and political stability.
[i] "McChrystal: More Forces or Mission Failure," Washington Post, September 21, 2009.
[ii] "Sources: US Eyes More Drone Hits in Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 21, 2009.
[iii] North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO's Role in Afghanistan, last updated September 18, 2009, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/
[iv] See McChrystal's August 30, 2009, memorandum to Gates at http://media.washingtonpost.
- 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...
17 Comments so far
Show Allthe author is parsing the distinct and contradictory military strategy(s) as laid out by obama and mccrystal through the narrow prism of the nato mandate
the nato mandate is a joke of course as it doesn't mention oil, or gas or heroin
it doesn't mention pipelines
it doesn't mention the ongoing strategy to encircle the soviet union, press the chinese and keep them both from accessing the resources of this area, the mid-east
if you listen to the nato bullshit - they are there to yada yada yada etc and so on....nation building...blah...blah..blah...freedom and democracy (my personal favorite)...yada yada yada
the fact of the matter is that nato (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wandering far from the atlantic and is engaging in threatening military adventures where ever it goes - all entirely inappropriately. it has become another toxic nwo enforcement agency as the war in yugoslavia demonstrated
the rothschild/rockefeller/nwo death machine exists to kill peasants and to brow beat governments into submsission
the public has been placated by tv, fear and ignorance so they support the broad war against arabs because of the false flag of 9/11 - believing as the liar bushbaby said: "they hate us for our freedoms". what a load of camel manure
creating a war in pakistan could easily endanger the entire mid-east and that would create the "opportunity" for the nwo to go in and take over
kissinger and rahm emmanuel both agree that "you hate to let a good crisis go to waste"
when you have an assassin like the sick bastard mccrystal saying that he can't kill enough afghans to end this war you have to stop and think. this guy has been murdering people for 30 years in our name and if a thug like him can't do it, that says something
meanwhile the psyop that is obama is vacillating his afghan policy for the pakistan policy - nwo scum that he is - he isn't even finished the health care psyop and is already moving on to the murder of innocent pakistanis
i guess his "right war" wasn't that right after all
Picking up on Lebeau's point regarding disingenuous reporting, I had just read this morning a report by the AP, which was carried by my local paper, that Obama, as this article has mentioned, is considering launching more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes. Nowhere in this report by the AP is there any reference to the fact that Pakistani civilians have been killed by these drones. If Obama decides to shift the focus from Afghanistan to Pakistan, what will remain the same in this example of American militarism is that more innocent civilians will once again end up dead in order to justify this never ending war on terror.
There is no such thing as a Pakistani Civilian as far as "War Policy" is concerned. They are all Militants.
this is an excerpt from NY Times - BOB Herbert's article:
===============
A friend of mine who lives in South Carolina sent me an e-mail about a young serviceman in civilian clothes whom she and her husband noticed as he talked on a public telephone in the Atlanta airport last week. He was 19 or 20 years old and quite thin. His clothes and his shoes were worn, my friend said, but the thing she noticed most “was the sadness in his eyes and his sweet demeanor.”
The young man was speaking to his mom in a voice that was quite emotional. My friend recalled him saying, “We’re about to board for Oklahoma for the training before we move out. I didn’t want to bother Amber at work, so please tell her I called if you don’t think it will upset her too much. ... I miss you all so much and love you, and I just don’t know how I’ll get through this.”
At the end of the call, the serviceman had tears in his eyes and my friend said she did, too. She wrote in the e-mail: “I stood up and wished him good luck, and he smiled the sweetest smile that has haunted me ever since.”
from the article:
"Given the apparent disarray on strategy between the White House and its commander in Afghanistan, and even looking at the war in Afghanistan from the narrow perspectives of the political and military leaders in Washington, it is hard to believe that a coherent military strategy for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban is imminent, or even possible."
It is hard to believe 'coherent military strategy' is even accepted by the citizenry as a relevant phrase...
this is, as lebeau posts, deadly serious business, not military work...as teddy posts, the people doing the grunt work on the ground, and getting re-upped and traumatized and radiated and exposed to pathogens and forced to kill or be killed for their trouble, are not the ones getting the unbelievable profits, but are the young, naive and desperate...lives stolen and traded for illicit money...heroin...
as i said in a similar comment in another article thread here:
HOW DARE america do this to its OWN children?...turn them into soldiers and killing machines and murderers in uniform supposedly for the "glory of america" ? to do battle against people elsewhere who , as someone said long ago:
"who otherwise have NO quarrels with US?" until america started meddling in their affairs?
how DARE ?
i can't imagine how ordinary americans BLITHELY walk around with "support the troops" nonsense - and yet close their own eyes at what must be bitter, great sorrow for their OWN fellow american families' lives whose sons and daughters are sent to do DEVILISH work of WARmaking!
and largely because most of these young people come from poorer families in an economy that has taken away their own futures to render them pawns for profit and power and bloodlust.
i can't even imagine the SADNESS in that young soldier - to go away from his own beloved ones - just to find out HELL and that he is going to be turned into a MINION of HELL.
it's just not right.
Sioux Rose
TEDDY: Beyond analysis at depth, a few triggering devices or aspects of programming (behavior modification on a grand scale) come to mind to answer you question:
1. Sports: The subliminal subtext of sports involves loyalty to a team. We hear chants of "Kill!" as if the other team was an enemy. This visual goes deep into many minds and psyches.
2. Fundamentalist religion: Designed for and by the authoritarians, it brooks no questions and demands that "the faithful" follow the rules of the presumably wise father figures. It's been estimated that 25-30% of the population naturally falls into this psychological camp. Thus questions R clearly not U.S. (or them).
3. Entertainment: With killing, murder, dismemberment, and fortuitous calamity a STAPLE of most films today, there is a deadening of the response of disgust, the conscience dulled by the ready availability of these images. (And I would add the proliferation of porn to the mix to excite similar disturbed and disturbing effects.)
The overlap of these three now normative structures of American life have made war into something not to be questioned, and frequently aligned with a false purpose. The sexualization of the warrior, or uniformed male, is also used by our uber: Mars-oriented culture to entice young men, that is when their financial prospects are not equally depressed, to join and "be all that you can be."
Conditioning of the sort everyday Americans are now constantly exposed to is an experiment that borrows from Freud, Bernays, Orwell, and Pavlov. As a result lots of persons get caught up in the maze of war, a tragic outcome if ever there was one. And a monument to waste given the blessings shed upon this nation.
The role of the media here in conditioning the masses is much more critical then we realize.
By feeding MISinformation it helps to create a Conditioned response which leads to the shaping of behaviour.
Its not just the exposure to violence. It can be simple mistruths passed off as fact. As in Saddam hussein was behind 9/11.
In a study done test subjects were exposed to both Historical books and "Historical films" in order to test memory rentention. It was found that the brain could much easier recall information presented using Telvision as a medium even when that information false.
It is my feeling as well that when a subject sees something acted out on a screen, it becomes more "believeable" and more "real" and therefore more "true". Information one reads in texts or magazine articles is much more likely to be corroborated to see if it factual then imagery on a screen.
Just reflect back on the staged demonstration of Saddms Statue toppled and the seeming "joy of the people" and imagine reading that same account in an article. The article would never have the same emotional impact of the "Real Thing" even though the "real Thing" was faked.
Yet , even when we are informed that the event was staged our brain still retains those images of joy being expressed by the crowd.
It just does not work the same way with the written word.
Thus LONG ago, the Pentagon and the MIC helped to hijack Hollywood. They formed partnerships with them to make films wherein the role of war and violence on history is presented as being ultimately a "postive one".
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: I fully agree with you. If I am remembering the study you've cited, it's based on the idea that the more SENSES we engage, the greater the embedded impression(s). Your post complements mine. I don't think we're "arguing" different points here at all. And it's worth noting that those with PH.D. degrees in psychology have studied the power of buzz words and specific images, even scents and sounds, and now use these directed at "target audiences" for controlled outcomes (or related purposes). I have actually entered homes and FELT a subliminal tape playing, and since I turned off my own TV 3 years ago when I enter a home with one blaring, its invasion of my personal space and use of subliminal forms of seduction to rope in my attention is FELT quite acutely. My friends get upset with me as I DEMAND that they mute out commercials. They say I am intolerant, etc, or recommend that I "just screen it out" as if our minds can do so! They record everything, even while we're sleeping! And since we mortals generally use about 10% of our brains (or less), it's a fool's errand to argue that what's stored in the other 90% as "back-up files" doesn't influence our unconscious and subconscious response systems, and/or programming. For all we know we COULD be living in something akin to a Matrix. We humans could be another more advanced civilization's experiment in genetic technology! Maybe Ezekiel DID see THE wheel?
Clearly,an effective strategy against Al Queda would involve reliable native intelligence sources and special-ops ground forces, rather than satellite surveilance and drone bombs, like any operation against criminal gangs. Glorified FBI investigations and busts. And, of course, the very term "Afghan Government" begins its life as a euphemism. So the alternatives being argued are just completely false.
And, once again, despite what would seem to be an intention to argue against the war, absolutely no mention is given to the problem of clearly defining what concrete U.S. National Interests are at stake. What can the American people expect to gain even if we "win" the war?
This might seem like a selfish question. After all, wouldn't it be nice if "winning" the war, for instance, helped improve the status of women and how wonderful it would be to be able to pat ourselves on the back if that, by some fantastical stretch of the imagination, actually happened. Just think, if by stint of our massive technological superiority and unlimited financial enticements, we were able to effect a cultural revolution in Afghaistan in a matter of decades, which took Western Europe centuries to achieve!
Endless discussions and debates over strategy and tactics cannot replace a genuine consideration of the ACTUAL AIMS of this war and occupation in the strictest utilitarian terms of U.S. National Interest- what is in it all for "Joe The Plumber", who could actually be making a pretty good living digging latrines in places where he would be more than welcome.
The idiotic positions of the neo-conservative Hawks is one thing but, as articles like this show, the positions of the so-called "liberal", so-called opponents of the war arn't much better. Two sides of the same worthless coin.
Now someone is going to pipe up and say the whole thing about Iraq and Afghanistan is about oil, gas and other mineral resources. But all these commodities can be obtained much more efficiently, with far greater reliability and much lower costs without war and occupation. Any executive in any of these companies will tell you that without the slightest prevarication. In every case, they say, war, occupation and the instabilities that accompany them as well as dictatorship, autocratic rule and the existence of oppressed minorities and populations without civil rights make their jobs far more difficult and expensive. And whatever role Haliburton and other giant multi-national operations have is almost purely opportunistic. The political impetus,the Congressional policy the deployment of troops, the orders for arms and infrastructure all come first. These companies step in and reap the profits. Of course in the "fog of war" and other pressing "emergencies" their profits are higher than they might be otherwise but they could just as well be doing some along the "peace and development line", if the American people decided they'd had enough of messianic campaigns to save the world and all that it is costing them without any realistic expectation of every getting a single dime of what they've spent back!
Sioux Rose
JOHN S: I appreciate your strong analysis, however, the military industrial complex now needs war as its product given that many of the states employ citizens in its many tentacled arms/arms industries. I happen to believe the entire military could be commissioned to work on greener technologies for the domestic U.S, but until such time as an intelligent mandate goes out to employ the military for saner purposes it MUST find and seek its next war zone.
Some in this forum have argued that the Middle East is necessary as a geopolitical zone that would allow the U.S. to maintain control. Otherwise, Russia and China can move in and seize assets, perhaps even shutting the U.S. and the dollar out of major international trade deals. So it's not just the matter of fiscally sound deals, but the long-term plans of this nations' architects, and how influential the MIC on all the decision-making boards.
I have been worried about this conflict migrating into Pakistan. It's such an unstable region and the fact that nation has the bomb is extremely troubling. Between the legacy of a broken and depleted Iraq, added to similar inroads into Afghanistan, now added to talk of hitting on Pakistan... there must be forces in the Arab world that are now planning what to do about all this senseless carnage. Who would blame them? Hasn't it been said that every force generates an equal opposite reaction? Whomever was responsible for 911, relatively simple instruments used ingeniously momentarily took down The Empire. I would suspect that very clever thinking could also turn a U.S. nuclear facility into its own weapon of destruction; and sadly, biological warfare can easily cross national borders. This talk of winning when so many lives are lost is a grave insult to, and assault upon an entire race. I do not stand with my nation in these amoral decisions... and I know many feel as I do, in this forum, and elsewhere. The great question is how to stop the BEAST?
From a US gov't POV, aside from immediate corporate profits, purchasing the resources does not work because that would allow other countries to purchase as well.
The point is to be able to shut off resources at will.
Of course, this is only effective insofar as the world remains dependent on these resources. Hence the considerable reluctance to address climate change, green tech and so forth.
The media discussions of Afghanistan I hear always start from
the same baseline of unquestioned idiocy. It is as if the
commentators and moderator have met for five minutes in
a blue room off to one side of the broadcast booth before
the show begins.
MODERATOR. Let us hold hands. Now while we agree
that the present administration has made mistakes, the
national discourse is overly conceptual, too much pro
or con. Let us pray that we can work together to fill in
the subtleties and fine points overlooked by the general
public every day.
FIRST COMMENTATOR. Yes, we can preface every
statement with the word, "Well." That's a good step
toward balanced, unemotional discussion.
SECOND COMMENTATOR. General McChrystal
certainly does have his work cut out for him whether
he gets more troops or not.
THIRD COMMENTATOR. The thing that gets me is
how cynical the critics of this war are, and by that
I mean people who find no redeeming qualities
whatsoever. Of course we can make a good
connection with the Afghans and befriend them and
aid them and train them. The idea that you can't do
this as long as we have boots on the ground is patently
false. History has never applied to America.
MODERATOR. Let's go get them.
We are in Afghanistan for political reasons, period. Let the people decide:
http://www.vote.org
Is our mission to protect the gas/oil routes?
What if we don't?
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that the funding request for a huge expansion of bases and airfields in Afghanistan is lurking right behind the request for more soldiers. McChrystal may want our soldiers to befriend the "good" Afghans but he is not going to force our soldiers to live, eat, drink, sleep, and watch TV in Afghans' homes. For political-strategic reasons this request has not yet been leaked to the gullible Washington Post as the addition to the huge costs of the AfPak war may not be swallowed (yet)by most of the US voters. The strategy is therefore: give us the soldiers first, then we will argue that they cannot be housed in tents given the murderous Afghan climate.