Afghanistan

[Slimprofits]

Re: Afghanistan

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1778947.html

British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase

By Kim Sengupta in Kabul

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.

[don]

Re: Afghanistan

Commentary No. 264, Sept. 1, 2009

"The Firestorm Ahead"

There is a firestorm ahead in the Middle East for which neither the U.S. government nor the U.S. public is prepared. They seem scarcely aware how close it is on the horizon or how ferocious it will be. The U.S. government (and therefore almost inevitably the U.S. public) is deluding itself massively about its capacity to handle the situation in terms of its stated objectives. The storm will go from Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan to Israel/Palestine, and in the classic expression "it will spread like wildfire."

Let us start with Iraq. The United States has signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq, which went into effect on July 1. It provided for turning over internal security to the Iraqi government and, in theory, essentially restricting U.S. forces to their bases and to some limited role in training Iraqi troops. Some of the wording of this agreement is ambiguous. Deliberately so, since that was the only way both sides would sign it.

Even the first months of operation show how poorly this agreement is operating. The Iraqi forces have been interpreting it very strictly, formally forbidding both joint patrols and also any unilateral U.S. military actions without prior detailed clearance with the government. It has gotten to the point that Iraqi forces are stopping U.S. forces from passing checkpoints with supplies during daytime hours.

The U.S. forces have been chafing. They have tried to interpret the clause guaranteeing them the right of self-defense far more loosely than the Iraqi forces want. They are pointing to the upturn in violence in Iraq and therefore implicitly to the incapacity of Iraqi forces to guarantee order.

The general commanding the U.S. forces, Ray Odierno, is obviously extremely unhappy and is patently scheming to find excuses to reestablish a direct U.S. role. Recently, he met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq and President Masoud Barzani of the Kurdish Regional Government. Odierno sought to persuade them to permit tripartite (Iraqi/Kurdish/American) joint patrols in Mosul and other areas of northern Iraq, in order to prevent or minimize violence. They politely agreed to consider his proposal. Unfortunately for Odierno, his plan would require a formal revision of the SOFA agreement.

Originally, there was supposed to be a referendum in the beginning of July on popular approval of the SOFA agreement. The United States was afraid of losing the vote, which would have meant that all U.S. forces would have had to be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2010, one full year earlier than the theoretical date in the SOFA agreement.

The United States thought it was very clever in persuading al-Maliki to postpone this referendum to January 2010. Now it will be held in conjunction with the national elections. In the national elections, everyone will be seeking to obtain votes. No one is going to be campaigning in favor of a "yes" vote on the referendum. Lest this be in any doubt, al-Maliki is submitting a project to the Iraqi parliament that will permit a simple majority of "no" votes to annul the agreement. There will be a majority of "no" votes. There may even be an overwhelming majority of "no" votes. Odierno should be packing his bags now. I'll bet he still has the illusion that he can avoid the onset of the firestorm. He can't.

What will happen next? At the present, but this may change between now and January, it looks like al-Maliki will win the election. He will do this by becoming the number one champion of Iraqi nationalism. He will make deals with all and sundry on this basis. Iraqi nationalism at the moment doesn't have much to do with Iran or Saudi Arabia or Israel or Russia. It means first of all liberating Iraq from the last vestiges of U.S. colonial rule, which is how almost all Iraqis define what they have been living under since 2003.

Will there be internal violence in Iraq? Probably, though possibly less than Odierno and others expect. But so what? Iraqi "liberation" - which is what the entire Middle East will interpret a "no" vote on the referendum to be - will immediately have a great impact on Afghanistan. There people will say, if the Iraqis can do it, so can we.

Of course, the situation in Afghanistan is different, very different, from that of Iraq. But look at what is going on now with the elections in Afghanistan. We have a government put into power to contain and destroy the Taliban. The Taliban have turned out to be more tenacious and militarily effective than any one seemed ever to anticipate. Even the tough U.S. commander there, Stanley McChrystal, has recognized that. The U.S. military is now talking of "succeeding" in perhaps a decade. Soldiers who think they have a decade to win a war against insurgents have clearly not been reading military history.

Notice the Afghan politicians themselves. Three leading candidates for the presidency, including President Hamid Karzai, debated on television the current internal war. They agreed on one thing. There must be some kind of political negotiations with the Taliban. They differed on the details. The U.S. (and NATO) forces are there ostensibly to destroy the Taliban. And the leading Afghan politicians are debating how to come to political terms with them. There is a serious disjuncture here of appreciation of realities, or perhaps of political objectives.

The polls - for what they are worth - are showing that the majority of Afghans want the NATO forces to leave and the majority of U.S. voters want the same thing. Now look ahead to January 2010, when the Iraqis vote the United States out of Iraq. Remember that, before the Taliban came to power, the country was the site of fierce and ruthless fighting among competing warlords, each with different ethnic bases, to control the country.

The United States was actually relieved when the Pakistani-backed Taliban took power. Order at last. There turned out to be a minor problem. The Taliban were serious about sharia and friendly to the emergent al-Qaeda. So, after 9/11, the United States, with west European approval and United Nations sanction, invaded. The Taliban were ousted from power - for a little while.

What will happen now? The Afghans will probably revert to the nasty continuing inter-ethnic wars of the warlords, with the Taliban just one more faction. The U.S. public's tolerance for that war will evaporate entirely. All the internal factions and many of the neighbors (Russia, Iran, India, and Pakistan) will remain to fight over the pieces.

And then stage three - Pakistan. Pakistan is another complicated situation. But none of the players there trust the United States. And the polls there show that the Pakistani public thinks that the greatest danger to Pakistan is the United States, and that by an overwhelming vote. The traditional enemy, India, is far behind the United States in the polls. When Afghanistan crumbles into a full-fledged civil war, the Pakistani army will be very busy supporting the Taliban. They cannot support the Taliban in Afghanistan while fighting them in Pakistan. They will no longer be able to accept U.S. drones bombing in Pakistan.

So then comes stage four of the firestorm - Israel/Palestine. The Arab world will observe the collapse of U.S. projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The U.S. project in Israel/Palestine is a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Israelis are not going to budge an inch. But neither now, and especially after the rest of the firestorm, are the Palestinians. The one consequence will be the enormous pressure that other Arab states will put upon Fatah and Hamas to join forces. This will be over Mahmoud Abbas's dead body - which might literally be the case.

The whole Obama program will have gone up in flames. And the Republicans will make hay with it. They will call U.S. defeat in the Middle East "betrayal" and it is obvious now that there is a large group inside the United States very receptive to such a theme.

One either anticipates firestorms and does something useful, or one gets swept up in them.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[don]

Re: Afghanistan

Another case of "you can't make this up".

Deputy Chief of Intelligence Is Slain in Afghanistan


MEHTARLAM, Afghanistan — The second-ranking intelligence official in Afghanistan and a prominent ally of President Hamid Karzai was assassinated by a suicide bomber on Wednesday morning in a blast that also killed 15 others outside the main mosque in the official’s hometown, near Kabul, officials and witnesses said.

The official, Dr. Abdullah Laghmani, was the deputy director of the National Directorate for Security.

The assassination of such a powerful member of the country’s security apparatus highlighted the lack of security even in cities that are not considered to have significant Taliban influence. Mehtarlam is relatively safe compared to other cities in eastern Afghanistan, and the attack came at a time when Dr. Laghmani could be expected to feel at ease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/wo...afghan.html?hp

[audrey_girl]

Re: Afghanistan

Obama's a fool keeping Gates and then committing to double the number of troops this year.

if he reverses course now he will appear awfully weak

people voted for change - you get this uber-fiasco

uggh

what a moron

its deja-vu all over again:

cry for America




it ain't mean - I ain't no senator's son

[D-Mack]

Re: Afghanistan

Animal House in Afghanistan
— By Daniel Schulman | Tue September 1, 2009 10:19 AM PST
—Photo provided by the Project on Government Oversight.


UPDATE: Here are the jaw-dropping photos. NSFW.

Drunken brawls, prostitutes, hazing and humiliation, taking vodka shots out of buttcracks— no, the perpetrators of these Animal House-like antics aren't some depraved frat brothers. They are the private security contractors guarding the US embassy compound in Kabul.

These allegations, and many more, are contained in a letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday by the Project on Government Oversight, which has been investigating the embassy security contract held by ArmorGroup North America (a subsidiary of Wackenhut, which is in turn owned by the security behemoth G4S). The contractor was the subject of a congressional probe earlier this summer that found serious lapses in the company's handling of the embassy security contract, which internal State Department documents said left the embassy compound "in jeopardy." Nevertheless, the government opted to extend the company's 5-year, $189 million contract for another year.

...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009...se-afghanistan

Looks like they are bored over there

[Starving Steve]

Re: Afghanistan

If I were Obama, the strategy in the Middle East would NOT be nation-building. It would be to EXTERMINATE the enemy and do it from the air.

All ground troops would be withdrawn to ships or sent back home. Extermination of the Taliban, Al Qaide, Hamas, Hesbollah, and radical Islamic clerics would be handled in earnest---- the way Stalin would have handled the problem.

After the war, no Islamo-fascists would be left. We would write the history books, not the enemy.

This bunch of clerics running Tehran now would be given our "special treatment".

[kartius919]

Re: Afghanistan

I hope you're joking, because otherwise you scare me steve.

[aaron]

Re: Afghanistan

If it were up to me, I would get the hell out of there too. However, I would not drop the bombs. They can go on killing each other. Why waste the energy?

It does not matter though. We are not there to spread democracy, kill bad guys, or anything of the sort. It is for $$ and oil, the latter being exceedingly important to the United States. Bombing the crap out of them might interrupt our oil supplies.

God, it is all fricken hopeless.

[D-Mack]

Re: Afghanistan

Afghanistan for Dummies


By Ray McGovern

September 02, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- I’m going to ask for my money back. I’ve seen this Afghanistan movie before. The first time, Vietnam was in the title.

As in an early scene from the Vietnam version, U.S. military officials are surprised to discover that the insurgents in Afghanistan are stronger than previously realized.

And our protagonist, Gen. Westmoreland — sorry, I mean McChrystal — sees the situation as serious but salvageable. As Westmoreland did with President Lyndon Johnson, McChrystal is preparing to tell President Barack Obama that thousands of more troops are needed to achieve the U.S. objective — whatever that happens to be.

As in Vietnam, uncertainty about objectives and how to measure success persist in Afghanistan. Never has this come through more clearly than in the fuzzy remarks of “Af-Pak” super-envoy Richard Holbrooke who has purview over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

...

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle23410.htm

[flintlock]

Re: Afghanistan

I'm not advocating this necessarily, but frankly, just letting them go at each other would be more effective.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Afghanistan

If I were Obama, the strategy in the Middle East would NOT be nation-building. It would be to EXTERMINATE the enemy and do it from the air.

After the war, no Islamo-fascists would be left. We would write the history books, not the enemy.

More of this

Washington Post:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 26 2008-- United Nations officials in Afghanistan said Tuesday that there was "convincing evidence" at least 90 civilians -- two-thirds of them children -- were killed in a U.S.-led airstrike last week that caused the Afghan government to call for a review of U.S. and NATO military operations in the country.
Kai Eide, the top U.N. official in Afghanistan, said local officials and residents in the western province of Herat corroborated reports that 60 children and 30 adults had been killed in an Aug. 21 military operation led by U.S. Special Operations forces and the Afghan army.
In a statement, Eide called the incident a "matter of grave concern to the United Nations" and said he had "repeatedly made clear that the safety and welfare of civilians must be considered above all else during the planning and conduct of all military operations."

For this

Hey but who cares better kill the Islamo facitists now while they are young.:rolleyes::mad:


There are no good guys perpetuating violence, there are only power and money hungry Afghans, Pakistanis, Americans etc. and innocent victims dying in their power games.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Afghanistan

If I were Obama, the strategy in the Middle East would NOT be nation-building. It would be to EXTERMINATE the enemy and do it from the air.

All ground troops would be withdrawn to ships or sent back home. Extermination of the Taliban, Al Qaide, Hamas, Hesbollah, and radical Islamic clerics would be handled in earnest---- the way Stalin would have handled the problem.

After the war, no Islamo-fascists would be left. We would write the history books, not the enemy.

This bunch of clerics running Tehran now would be given our "special treatment".

Yeah -same thing the germans wanted to do with the Jewish, and of course the Jewish wish to do with Palestinians. I think if we were alive in German times (1930s) -a lot of Americans felt the same way (see the rapidly mushrooming numbers of neo-nazi's in the US at the time).

Special treatment is it? Yes-I guess so -after all we should include them with the countless American Indian tribes, South American tribes, Aborgines, Vietcong, Indian Indians (mass starbvatio), etc etc etc.

'Special treatment' has been an unfortunate consequence and appears to be very much in vogue the last millenia. But hey I cogratulate themany who agree with this- I applaud your acceptance of genocide/ethnocide etc by indulging in its exposition via casual conversation.

I am sure that we will progress to justifying the mass murder and misery of untold millions as long as it does not affect the shores of our nation/ambition and of course the legacy we shall leave to have others harvest their share of previous bloodshed. I applaud this type of thinking -and am sure that we as a collective of silent consenters to many genocied -can rest assure that in the future -they will be even more efficent than the US/Canada/South America/etc in removing 'unwanted' populations.

Hope we are all there when it finally becomes our turn.

[ASH]

Re: Afghanistan

If I were Obama, the strategy in the Middle East would NOT be nation-building. It would be to EXTERMINATE the enemy and do it from the air.

I believe this approach, roughly, was attempted by the British elsewhere in the Middle East under the name "air control". Mind you, it wasn't about wholesale extermination, but rather selective brutality to keep various tribes in line. (I make no promises about my link -- it was the first thing that popped up in Google, and the abstract matched my recollection of the history. However, I didn't read the paper.)

The thing is, that one is sort of hard to justify if you regard Afghans as "people." Also, it doesn't test very well in focus groups.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Afghanistan

When I was a student in the 1960s at UC Berkeley, in the Peace Movement in the 1960s, we used to sing: "All we are saying is, 'Give peace a chance.'"

But after seeing the mass executions last week in Tehran of protesters against the regime, my thoughts are now, "Give war a chance."

I don't have a lot of sympathy with causes where homocide bombers blow themselves up on buses or in restaurants to kill as many people as possible. And after 9/11, I frankly don't have sympathy for any of the terrorists in the Middle East.

So, all I am saying is, "Give war a chance." Bring the troops out to sea and then bomb the hell out of the hot-spots. Maybe let governments favourable to the West decide where they would like an air-strike, and then we hit the Islamo-fascists from the air. Take no prisoners.

Notice how the attitude in Gaza is slowly moderating and now turning against radical Islamic clerics? One or two of the clerics have been murdered recently.... Notice how Hamas in Gaza is moderating a bit now too? Notice that Palestinians now have joined hands with Isrealis in Jeruselem in a circle for peace?

A winter outside in the cool rain sitting in rubble and debris from past conflict with Isreal will give the people of Gaza a whole new attitude on peace..... Just watch and see.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Afghanistan

When I was a student in the 1960s at UC Berkeley, in the Peace Movement in the 1960s, we used to sing: "All we are saying is, 'Give peace a chance.'"

But after seeing the mass executions last week in Tehran of protesters against the regime, my thoughts are now, "Give war a chance."

I don't have a lot of sympathy with causes where homocide bombers blow themselves up on buses or in restaurants to kill as many people as possible. And after 9/11, I frankly don't have sympathy for any of the terrorists in the Middle East.

So, all I am saying is, "Give war a chance." Bring the troops out to sea and then bomb the hell out of the hot-spots. Maybe let governments favourable to the West decide where they would like an air-strike, and then we hit the Islamo-fascists from the air. Take no prisoners.

Notice how the attitude in Gaza is slowly moderating and now turning against radical Islamic clerics? One or two of the clerics have been murdered recently.... Notice how Hamas in Gaza is moderating a bit now too? Notice that Palestinians now have joined hands with Isrealis in Jeruselem in a circle for peace?

A winter outside in the cool rain sitting in rubble and debris from past conflict with Isreal will give the people of Gaza a whole new attitude on peace..... Just watch and see.

Puh-lease- I am always bemused by this 'concern' for other nations. When we examine the tangled yarn carefully and with utmost sincerity we find only a hollow intellect, narrow vison, and compassion that is hoarded like gold doled out to the world at large in the most parsimonious fashion.

I failed to ever understand how the millions of woman and children of Native American/Jewish/African American/Rawandans, Pakistani's, Palestinians etc ad nauseum have anything to do even in the most indirect manner to deserve death. The fact that we receive these kinds of notional re-enforcement or worse dispassionate, callous thought on a forum which prides itself on the caliber of its contributors is indeed a sad reflection and perhaps an urgent calling for mankind to shed this primitvsm and return to the more encompassing paradigm of spirituality (not religion).