Squaring the Afghan Circle
| Sun Aug. 23, 2009 8:13 PM PDT
In a region the Taliban have lorded over for six years, and where they remain a menacing presence, American officers say their troops alone are not enough to reassure Afghans. Something is missing that has left even the recently appointed district governor feeling dismayed. “I don’t get any support from the government,” said the governor, Massoud Ahmad Rassouli Balouch.
....Even with the new operation in Helmand Province, which involves the Marines here and more than 3,000 others as part of President Obama’s troop deployments, the military lacks the troop strength even to try to secure some significant population centers and guerrilla strongholds in central and southern Helmand.
American military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Obama’s chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operate across borders.
....The possibility that more troops will be needed in Afghanistan presents the Obama administration with another problem in dealing with a nearly eight-year war that has lost popularity at home, compounded by new questions over the credibility of the Afghan government, which has just held an as-yet inconclusive presidential election beset by complaints of fraud.
OK then. More troops aren't getting the job done because we're not getting any support from the Afghan government. So we're going to ask for more troops.
OK, OK: I know that's just a smart ass comment. In fact, here's some good news from McClatchy: "Pakistan's extremist Taliban movement is badly divided over who should be its new leader, and analysts and local tribesmen say the al Qaida-linked group may be in danger of crumbling." Though even that's a mixed blessing. The second NYT story suggests that the death of Baitullah Mehsud, which set off the problems in the Pakistani Taliban, may also cause the Pakistani army to lose interest in the tribal areas and move on to other, shinier toys.
Overall, the evidence suggests that steadily increasing U.S. troop strength has had virtually no effect in the past; that the Taliban is getting continually stronger; that the central government is corrupt and incompetent; and that even under the best circumstances the Afghan army can't be brought up to speed in less than five years. At the same time, U.S. commanders say they understand that they have only 12-18 months to turn things around.
Someone needs to explain to me how that's going to happen. Anything even remotely plausible will do for a start. Because I sure don't see it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Asia Times
Submitted by nepeta on Sun Aug. 23, 2009 10:33 PM PDT.
Kevin, instead of reading the NYT, read the Asia Times. This isn't one of the best articles, but at least gives a hint of what might be happening. I hadn't been aware of talks between the Taliban and the Saudis, for example. The gist of the article is that there's no way the US is going to win a military victory and that Obama's troop increase was actually counterproductive to progress that was being made diplomatically. Efforts are being made to talk with the Taliban and come up with 'plans' for reunifying the country. A couple graphs:
"... After eight years since they were thrown from power, it is now accepted by American and European leaders that some form of reconciliation with the Taliban is the only way in which the insurgency can be defeated.
The head of the United States Central Command, General David Petraeus, told the BBC this week that "there would have to be talks with insurgents at a local level, though probably not at this stage with senior Taliban leaders". British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also indicated in a recent speech that the government should be prepared to talk to moderate tribal leaders associated with the Taliban.
Senior officials in Kabul have told Asia Times Online that the process of talking with elements of the Taliban is already underway. More substantial talks would most likely take place outside the country, with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia possible venues."
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KH22Df03.html
I guess we'll see soon enough what the US's next move will be, talking or fighting.
I'm not saying the war
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Aug. 23, 2009 10:58 PM PDT.
I'm not saying the war should go forward or troops should be increased. I am wondering why you constantly ignore the statements that the problem is the cross-border traffic of the Taliban, that we are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan when they are sheltering, recruiting, and fund-raising in Pakistan.
Also, without calling for the bombing of Cambodia, I note that Pakistan has its own problems with Taliban these days. So what happens to Pakistan if we either a) stop fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or b) increase our fighting of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Is are fighting in Afghanistan making the situation in nuclear Pakistan better or worse, and what does troop increases or decreases do to that?
2012
Submitted by James E. Powell on Sun Aug. 23, 2009 11:10 PM PDT.
At the same time, U.S. commanders say they understand that they have only 12-18 months to turn things around.
Obama has demonstrated early and often that he is just as beholden to the national security state as any Republican I can recall. Sure, he doesn't go around wearing uniforms or demand that all of his public appearances be in front of uniformed military personnel, but he does come out with more or less the same policies, no?
Expect the US to increase troops in Afghanistan until sometime after November 2012. Anything else will be a non-stop Republican-led Traitor Fest.
And another thing. The Pentagon has evidently stopped using Friedman Units. They want the whole 18 months or, put another way, until after the 2010 midterms.
The Solution
Submitted by Steve Sailer (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 1:40 AM PDT.
Bribe the Taliban into changing their name to something else; declare victory; and go home.
12-18 months: guess the next 6 months weren't enough
Submitted by low-tech cyclist on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 2:53 AM PDT.
Apparently we have the Afghan version of the Friedman Unit now.
History on auto-repeat
Submitted by Charlie Stross (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 2:45 AM PDT.
This is just history repeating itself.
It's pretty much what happened to the Soviets. It even reflects, albeit in updated form, what happened to the British Empire -- the history of General Elphinstone's expedition and the First Afghan War ought to be compulsory reading for anyone trying to understand Afghanistan.
Hint: they're used to being invaded by foreign empires. They have a standard MO for dealing with them. It takes time, but it's lethally effective. (Worked on the British Empire, worked on the Soviets, and now it's working -- like clockwork -- on the Americans.)
I'm no expert, but it seems
Submitted by Lazy B (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 4:47 AM PDT.
I'm no expert, but it seems a little odd that Karzai's political base is in the south and yet he and his army can't step foot in the south. We need to work with "leaders" who aren't hiding under our skirt or get out of there. Give Karzai a ticket back to Fremont.
old vs. new conventional wisdom?
Submitted by EB (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 5:40 AM PDT.
I remember that in the run-up to the Afghanistan war, after 9/11, the conventional wisdom was that we wouldn't need to fight this war if we stayed after the Soviets have left. This line of thinking was embraced by many on the left, who, with some justification, criticized US for creating a major problem in Afghanistan by using it as a Cold War battlefield and abandoning it once the battle was won. It is then quite surprising to me that the new conventional wisdom, again embraced by many on the left, is that we should abandon Afghanistan now that Al Qaeda has been, if not destroyed, then beaten up pretty badly. But then again, intellectual consistency and conventional wisdom don't mix well, do they?
Just Victory
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 5:47 AM PDT.
OK then. More troops aren't getting the job done because we're not getting any support from the Afghan government. So we're going to ask for more troops.
If we are going to continue to talk about our objectives in Afghanistan, we need to be a little more precise than "getting the job done." What do you mean? Tell me what the job is, and then we can think (and talk later, after thinking) about how many more deaths would make it worthwhile.
To the extent that we could, we conducted an arm's-length conquest of Afghanistan, using devastating air power and dubious surrogates to push the Taliban out of power. Afterward, we turned our attention to conquering Iraq. If change of government was "the job," we and our Afghan and NATO allies did it.
Now we're having trouble with the occupation. That's another job--one that most conquering nations eventually find too onerous to continue. I don't know where we are in the process of occupation disenchantment in the United States, because our military and our newly elected president can't seem to think beyond larger infusions of U.S. troops to prevent the collapse of our plans. What were those plans? How did the Cheney-Bush plans become the Obama plans? I don't know.
We have a pretty good idea of where we are in the process of occupation disenchantment in Afghanistan. Our military has finally acknowledged that the people haven't reacted well to being targets for our shocking and awesome firepower. Coincidentally, the Taliban are resurgent. Now the same military that didn't see that coming is asking for more troops. To do what?
Where are we going? Is NATO coming with us?
The job will never be done if we don't know what it is.
AL MAGRAHI OUTRAGE
Submitted by Lightflyer (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 6:26 AM PDT.
My own feelings are that al Magrahi should die in his cell alone, in pain and with judgement done.
That said, the position set out by the Justice Secretary of the Scottish Parliament is rational, compassionate and according to the laws of Scotland. Compassion is a concept missing in American discussion of the Scottish decision, also missing perhaps are values and basic concepts of law and behaviour heretofore shared between us.
How dare you, with your extra-territorial jails and persons held prisoners for now nearly a decade, some children when first held, with no hope of charge, habeas corpus, jury, court of law of any kind or any other fragment of the rule of law. Evenm when found to be without guilt in any form you will not take them in but cannot send them to places without law.
How dare you excoriate Scotland for a decision made in law, by law and made in the full daylight of a free parliament. How dare you.
You Americans shame all who thought we shared the same values.
What a shame, the one guy
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug. 24, 2009 9:31 AM PDT.
What a shame, the one guy who could really use some compassion went and murdered 200 innocent people.
UGG Boots Sale are sheepskin
Submitted by monaier (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 9:39 AM PST.
UGG Boots Sale are sheepskin boots.Our feet play an extremely important role in our health, and these Cheap UGGS keep the feet utmost comfortable.Like UGG Cardy Grey, it is comfortable and can be styled up and buttoned,slouched and slightly unbuttoned,or completely cuffed.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
