Maybe crunch time is approaching much faster than I had expected in Afghanistan, for US military planners desperately trying to assemble forces to deal with the deteriorating situation there?
Today, the Pentagon released a pair of Congressionally mandated reports that apparently depict a “fragile” security situation. What’s more, even that Armed Forces Press Service (AFPS) report linked to there admits that the formal “Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan”, which claimed some bright spots in the situation as of three months ago, may have been painting too rosy a picture compared with today…
The AFPS writer says:
- Underscoring the fragility of situation in Afghanistan and its tendency for rapid change is the fact that some of the report’s assertions about security success — based on information available several months ago and earlier — [are] no longer are as solid as once believed.
For instance, the report highlights Khowst province in eastern Afghanistan as an example of a once-troubled region transformed by counterinsurgency operations.
“Khowst was once considered ungovernable and one of the most dangerous provinces in Afghanistan,” the report states. “Today, tangible improvements in security, governance, reconstruction, and development are being made.”
But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday expressed concern that attacks in NATO’s Regional Command East section of Afghanistan, which includes Khowst province, rose 40 percent from January to May.
To me, one of the most relevant aspects of today’s news– which in classic Washington fashion, the Pentagon tried to “bury” by issuing it late on a Friday– is that it probably makes much more urgent the arrival of the country’s top military planners at a “Dannatt moment”, named in honor of the former chief of the British armed forces who back in late 2006 recognized that the western alliance just does not have enough forces to sustain operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore has to choose between them.
Back when Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt reached that conclusion, he opted unequivocally for focusing on Afghanistan. I assume (hope?) that the Pentagon’s top brass and suits will make the same choice once they reach Dannatt’s level of understanding about the impossibility of sustaining both theaters. Afghanistan and the lawless Afghan-Pakistan border are after all the zones in which Al-Qaeda was incubated, and in which the Qaeda-friendly Taliban have been making a big come-back in the past year. Iraq does have some violent Islamist networks that call themselves “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (who never existed there before the US invaded the country in 2003, we might note.)
But the far greater challenge of terrorist regroupment is still that in Afghanistan-Pakistan.
So when Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen reach their “Dannatt moment,” I hope they’ll make the same strategic choice that Dannatt made. What could make it easier is that, as I and others have argued for some time now, there really is a way we can plan for a US withdrawal from Iraq that is orderly, speedy, timely (and generous to Iraqis.) It’s far harder, at this point, to think of such a plan for Afghanistan, though realistically the need for that may come along some time pretty soon, too.
I see that Mullen sounded pretty desperate in remarks he made today in Garmisch, Germany, about the understaffing situation in Afghanistan.
The AFPS report linked to there says this:
- Mullen told about 200 students at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies he’s “desperate to get more capability” out of NATO. He said it’s critical that NATO lives up to its commitments to the alliance’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan…
“The simple math is that I can’t put any more [US] forces in Afghanistan until I come down in Iraq,” he told the group. He noted that initiatives to “grow” the Army and Marine Corps will take two to three years to develop deployment-ready troops. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are “pressed very hard” from multiple deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan, with too little time” at home stations between deployments. Mullen said keeping up the current operational tempo for the long term will be impossible.
In recent weeks, both Mullen and Gates have been pleading abjectly with the other NATO countries to contribute more forces to the Afghanistan mission. That AFPS report from Garmisch says,
- Mullen told students at the Marshall Center that he finds it difficult to understand why some NATO countries don’t share the deep concern the United States and other alliance members have about the situation in Afghanistan.
“It is very clear to me that those who live in Europe see [the terrorist threat] differently from those of us in the United States,” he said. Why Europe “isn’t more excited about what’s going on there than those of us in the United States,” Mullen said, is a question to which he doesn’t know the answer.
Afghanistan, where NATO leads the ISAF effort, is “at the heart of NATO right now,” he said. “And I believe that whether NATO is going to be relevant in the future is tied directly to a positive outcome in Afghanistan… ”
We could and probably should have a good discussion about why so many Europeans aren’t “excited” about what’s going on in Afghanistan. Maybe it’s because when the US’s gung-ho terrorist-hunting units there bomb populated areas and a lot of noncombatants die, many Europeans don’t see that as a winning strategy? Maybe because they, like me, scratch their heads trying to figure out how Afghanistan, a country in Central Asia, could in any way be thought of as lying “at the heart of” an organization associated the North Atlantic? Maybe because they are reluctant to serve in Afghanistan under the leadership of a country (the US) that is badly tainted because of its reckless decision decision to invade Iraq and its blatant disregard of many of the human rights and humanitarian-law norms that Europeans consider to be important? Well, who knows why?
So yes, the US government needs a far smarter, more multilateral (and by that I mean something much broader than NATO) and more successful strategy for Afghanistan. But in order to arrive at that, it needs to get out of Iraq.
Maybe while he’s in Europe, Adm. Mullen should go talk to Gen. Dannatt.
Mike Mullen would have trouble understanding just about anything, But even he should be able to understand that the risk of injury from terrorism is just as low in Europe as it is in the U.S, somewhere below bath-tub slips and lightning strikes. Are Europeans just smarter? I don’t know, it’s possible, and they certainly have media that’s less inclined to parrot the government line.
The problems with the military situation in Afghanistan, **which of course is a small part of the total situation,** may have been overblown to get Europe’s attention.
Here’s Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, commander in east Afghanistan, on June 24 (extract). He doesn’t seem too upset.
And using our numbers, we’re — we think we’ve had about a 40 percent increase in kinetic events. . .First, there is an increase in the capability and really the capacity of the Afghan national security forces. Clearly, the Afghan National Army is better than it was last year, and to be truthful, we are going to places that they did not operate last year or the year prior. . . Second, they are aggressively targeting what I will call both development and governance at the local level. . .Thirdly, the enemy’s taking refuge and operating with what I will call some freedom of movement in the border region, and they’re using this sanctuary to reconstitute, to plan and to launch attacks into Afghanistan.
So finally, . . . I do know that we’re making good progress, and each and every day we’re making a difference in the Afghan people’s lives.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4249
While Schloesser isn’t concerned, Gates is:
SEC. GATES (June 26): Well, I think it is a matter of concern, of real concern. And I think that one of the reasons that we’re seeing the increase, as General Schloesser probably told you, is more people coming across the border from the frontier area. And I think it’s an issue that clearly we have to pursue with the Pakistani government because it has been the — Regional Command East has been a success story. But clearly, the ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to cross that border and not being under any pressure from the Pakistani side of the border is clearly a concern. I think that’s the area that needs to be addressed with the Pakistani government as opposed to taking greater risk in Iraq. . . one of the things that I have found encouraging just today is a statement by the prime minister of Pakistan that the government intends to reassert its control and authority in the Northwest Frontier Province, and their designation of General Kayani and empowerment of him to take responsibility for that. So I think that creates an opportunity for us, and we certainly will be pursuing that.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4252
oooops–
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (capital of NW Frontier), June 27 (Reuters) – The Taliban are no longer at the gates of Peshawar, they’re inside, throwing their weight around in Pakistan’s largest city in the north-west.
Their brazen presence is a chilling demonstration of the political and military failure to resist a militant Islamist tide rolling in from the Pashtun tribal belt on the Afghan border.
“This speaks of a complete lack of control by the government over the situation,” said Mehmood Shah, a former tribal region security chief. “That’s why people are feeling insecure.”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL27430.htm
There are no military solutions in Afghanistan, or anywhere else.
Why should our children be running around the mountains of central Asia as cannon fodder in American wars of choice?
If Admiral Mullen needs more troops he should arrange for the return of the draft in the US.
Hummmm—-Why would “far broader” change things?
As long as we continue to use superficial military actions as our measure of our success or failure, and as a smoke screen that hides meaningful measures; then inevitably, the Taliban and Al Quada will continue to organize the people and establish economic development linkages all the way to New York and Charlottesville.
Can anyone cite one example of NATO at least attempting to protect a truly representative political or business organization?
Until we become part of the people, then, inevitably, we will lose.
Bob Spencer
Bob, you’re quite right. I fully realize it’s not predominantly a military problem. I need to do more writing about Afghanistan to explore what needs to be done there.
NATO should withdraw from the Afghan quagmire as soon as possible.
Getting down to the nitty gritty this is a nothing but a 19th century style colonial war sold under an “anti-terrorist” brand name.
Here’s hping that the NATO aggression ends in total failure just as the Soviet invasion did 20 years ago.
Helena,
Thanks for reviewing & publishing my comment. My longish comments with links have gone into “blog review limbo” before and never re-appeared, so thanks.
I recently wrote about the real reason that the US in in Afghanistan, and the possible balkanization of Pakistan.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon6.html
Events in Pakistan have a huge effect on Afghanistan, not least because the warrior Pashtuns that the US armed to drive the Russians out are now trying to drive the US out. The Pashtun tribal area extends from NW Pakistan right through the heart of Afghanistan. The A/P border, the Durand line, meant a lot to Sir Mortimer Durand but it doesn’t mean much to the Pashtuns who live and operate in “Pahtunistan.”
http://www.khyber.org/images/maps/pashtunistan.gif
Pakistan itself is seriously ethnically divided between the east Bengalis and the west Pashtuns.
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2374233
Al-Qaeda was incubated, and in which the Qaeda-friendly Taliban have been making a big come-back in the past year. Iraq does have some violent Islamist networks that call themselves “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (who never existed there before the US invaded the country in 2003, we might note.)
Looks your military/ official lost thier dircetion as Saddam lost his one when he went to Kuwiat, here we got CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed we’re beating al-Qaeda. As Hayden put it: “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.” what about root home CIA Director Michael Hayden?
1- Perpetuating the al-Qaeda-Iraq Myth
2- ‘Al Qaeda In Iraq’: Part Myth, Part Manipulation
3- The ‘myth’ of Iraq’s foreign fighters
I guess that I simply haven’t been paying attention: I was unaware of the extent to which Helena had bought into the GWOT.
The war in Afghanistan can no more be justified than the war against Iraq. In Canada this war, thanks to the spurious justification afforded by liberals, has not only cost the lives of many Canadians, but it has also led to deaths of many Afghan civilians some tortured in prisons (after having been delivered to their Afghan and American torturers) others killed in aerial and artillery assaults on villages and others murdered by NATO death squads carrying out missions to assassinate “suspects” and potential resistance leaders.
The war has brought great suffering to Afghanistan and it has coarsened and vulgarised the political discourse in this country: there is a continuum which runs from aggressive wars through the callous treatment of prisoners in the domestic penal system, all the way to abusing old people and bullying children. The sooner that we are out of Afghanistan, leaving reparation and apologies in our wake, the sooner will we begin to to reverse the nasty and suicidal trends which have recently made such ground in our society.
We’re working on Helena/Afghanistan — there’s hope. It’s just a tiny little blind spot, and it’s correctable because at the core she understands the futility of war.
Attacking Afghanistan was a completely wrong response to Sept 11. The only thing it accomplished was to give Americans nice warm fuzzy feelings of revenge whenever they saw things getting blown up there. Sept 11 was a criminal action by a group of individuals, not an act of war by a state. The correct response was not to launch a war.
Afghanistan was an attack target in early 2001. 9/11 became a convenient reason, the “New Pearl Harbor,” that the warhawks were looking for. And then the objective was not to catch OBL but to overthrow the uncooperative Taliban according to the original plan.
President Bush: “Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.”
General Franks: “Osama Bin Laden is not our target. We’re here for regime change against the Taliban.”
Of course the propaganda story was (is) different.
That seems like below the belt attacks on Helena’s integrity, bevin and Don. Saying she’s “bought into the GWOT” like you’d say to some Bush flunkie, and talking about “working on Helena” like she’s some new Moonie recruit.
These recent reports underscore the overall failure of leadership that the Bush administration has offered for all these seven years. I don’t think they ever wanted to fight in Afghanistan: They only cared about their big plans for Iraq. So they didn’t pay much heed to warnings about September 11, and when that happened they went, “We have to worry about THIS?” and have given nothing but a half-assed effort that has paled to their Iraq fantasies since. The end of the Bush administration is the only means of bringing about fundamental changes in the strategy in Afghanistan, it looks to me. Will Obama make those changes? I can’t say for sure, I hope he does. The Taliban was so intertwined with al-Qaeda that it had to be expelled from power. The leadership from that era must be kept from regaining power ever again. The Iraq farce needs to end so that the U.S./ISAF can put the needed resources and manpower to hold Taliban power back in the South. To make real progress in the issues Don raised in his article, and to avoid having one nation like Canada unfairly receive the overwhelming majority of the burden of dangerous operations. With a serious effort to confront Taliban military power, the Afghan government can then work to establish authority, and negotiate with combatants who are fighting for their own tribal interests instead of for Taliban/al-Qaeda loyalty.
I’ve been reading Joshua Frost’s blog, http://www.registan.net a lot lately. He’s put in many detailed posts about the current situation in Afghanistan, calling the U.S./ISAF on their downplaying of the seriousness of the situation there.
Inkan,
Looks like you’ve bought into the GWOT. Good for you.
1. So Bush has demonstrated an “overall failure of leadership” you say. Well I would put it just a little differently, if you don’t mind. George Bush is an evil SOB, a genuine war criminal. I hope that’s not too strong for you.
2. “I don’t think they ever wanted to fight in Afghanistan.” Spoken like a real chickhawk, Inkan. Who is “they?” I know it’s not you. It’s not Bush/Cheney. Who is this “they” that you want to sacrifice in Afghanistan, that graveyard of foreign armies, including the British, the Russian, and now the US, Canada and Britain again?
3. The US gave “a half-assed effort” in Afghanistan. Twenty-two US troops died there last month, Inkan. That isn’t enough for you, chickenhawk? Twenty-two patriots that did what they thought was right. They didn’t blabber, they went. And they died.
4. You hope that Obama makes “fundamental changes in the strategy in Afghanistan” which no doubt means more troops and more death, which of course won’t include you. No, not you. Will Obama attack Pakistan, the one Muslim nation with nukes? You probably hope that he will.
I really think a person with your passion for war, Inkan, and your utter lack of knowledge of the real circumstances, should stop tapping on a keyboard about the glory of other people dying and get on the next plane to Kabul to assist in the gorious effort. You could also enlist or get a job with KBR and contribute directly to the war effort. If the situation, as you say, is serious then they need YOU.
Otherwise shut up. Warmongers like you anger me.
It was Bush/Cheney. I was talking about the administration making the half-assed effort that’s leaving too few troops to face the Taliban. And who was talking about glory?
Inkan, hello
You want more troops
Why don’t you go?
The reason I get so mouthy on this subject is because being anti-war is a passion with me. There seems to be a mistaken notion in the US, shared by no other people in the world than some Israelis, that elective war, and the continuation of such a war, are proper subjects for a foreign policy discussion. They’re not. I don’t accept that. War is a crime, one especially hurtful of the women and children it destroys and maims. Advocating war is abetting a terrible crime.
So people like Inkan, who advocate war and more war, are outside the bounds of proper discussion, and as long as I am permitted by our gracious hostess to post here I will do my uttermost to discredit and shame anyone advocating war.
The terror threat has of course been overblown. It is statistically insignificant. The al Qaeda bogeymen can best be pursued by proper intelligence and policing; all the experts agree on that. The Taliban is an irritant for political reasons having to do with energy supplies. It ought to be obvious, after nearly seven years, that the US war strategy is ineffective. Those that use the escalation argument, like others did on Vietnam, don’t understand the fundamental fact that military aggression and occupation only breeds more resistance, as it would if the US were occupied by a foreign force. In this case American Exceptionalism, the idea that the US knows best, defies the realities of human nature.
Get a clue from the Europeans, and get the US military out of Afghanistan.
In other news:
*Bomb Kills Navy Medic From Arizona in Afghanistan
*Marine Helicopter Pilot (KY) Killed on Security Patrol in Afghanistan
*Family, Community Reflect on Happy Memories of Marine (IN) Killed in Afghanistan
*Labelle (FL) Marine Dies in Combat in Afghanistan
*Greenlawn (NY) Guardsman Killed in Afghanistan Ambush
*Soldier Slain in Afghanistan Was ‘Man of the House’
*Revere (MA) Family Grieves for Son Killed in Afghan War
*Family Mourns San Antonio (TX) Marine Killed in Action in Afghanistan
*West Pointer From Rockville (MD) Killed by Afghan Bomb
*Soldier (CA) Killed in Afghanistan Was to Return Home in Two Weeks
Oh Dear. They are off again!
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
So who has leaked in desperation!!!
I don’t know what kind of “people” Don is talking about. I refuse to be fenced into whatever categories he’s arbitrarily set up, and I refuse this “outside the bounds” scarlet letter he’s self righteously trying to brand me with. I was specifically talking about Afghanistan. I’ve posted enough times against elective wars in Iraq and Iran to feel that I don’t need to defend myself from his slanders against me. If Don wants to demonize me I’d appreciate it if he would find someone else to target his irrational obsessive behavior with.
Guys
Read the Hersch piece.
Inkan, Afghanistan is also an elective war, and was very likely the worst possible reaction to what was, in fact, a criminal act. Attacking Afghanistan has not done anything to reduce terrorism – quite the contrary, in fact.
Military action is simply not and never will be the answer to terrorism.
Shirin has it in a couple of lines. There was no justification, none. 911 was a criminal act. Not the act of a state, not Afghanistan certainly.
Now, I hope I don’t now deligitimate all past and future observations, but… as I understnd it, the towers fell at a few percent slower than free fall speed. That all the lower 80 percent of the buildings, some hundred thousand tons of steel, and other structural stuff, each, turned – as far as resisting the fall of the upper floors was concerned – essentially to air, in an instant, is a puzzle.
I have no evidence to support an opinion as to how that happened, but I find it exceedingly unlikely that the answer is to be found in Afghanistan.
G Hazeltine, yes, please don’t stick conspiracy nonsense into this discussion, as it does delegitimize all arguments. Websites such as http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html have already addressed these points.
Shirin, this was an answer to al-Qaeda, specifically. To the infrastructure al-Qaeda had built in cooperation with the Taliban. That infrastructure had to be swept away, and kept from reassembling. The Bush administration is failing at preventing this reestablishment of the Taliban/al-Qaeda structure. There’s already an effective safe haven in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas that Afghanistan and ISAF have to somehow find a way to cooperate with Pakistan to shut down. Mullah Mohammed Omar and the Taliban leadership of his era are criminals alongside Bin Laden and al-Zawarhiri. I support Karzai’s negotiation initiatives with factions currently fighting for the Taliban that are willing to forsake that leadership.
After the Taliban and al-Qaeda I don’t support a military form of a “War on Terror”. I agree that a military form makes no sense beyond al-Qaeda. Ultimately, issues involving political and economic injustices have to be addressed to take away the motivation people have to support terrorism.
“That infrastructure had to be swept away, and kept from reassembling.”
And how’s that working out, Inkan?
See, what you and others who think attacking Afghanistan is the answer do not think about is that you don’t wipe out criminal gangs by attacking the cities or countries you think they reside in. Not only will that not effectively eliminate the criminal gang – far from it – you will, as a result, have a whole city or country pissed off at you, plus a whole lot of the residents’ friends and relatives who live in other cities or countries, plus a whole lot of other people who don’t like what you are doing to their fellow human beings just because they live in the city or country where that criminal gang happened to set up shop. So, setting aside the immoral and criminal nature of attacking a whole city or country because a few thousand criminals may be operating out of it (it’s called, among other things, collective punishment), you will 1) not eliminate the criminal gang, and may very well help it to grow, 2) create a whole lot more enemies who now have every justification for coming after you.
Attacking Afghanistan was not the correct reaction to the crime of Sept. 11. The correct reaction was a combination of intelligence work, police work, and diplomacy.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is one country that finally, after many years, figured out how to effectively deal with its terrorism problem. That country is Spain. After years of exacerbating their own problem by reacting to terrorist acts by escalating the violence, they figured out that hearing the grievances of the Basques and negotiating a mutually agreeable modus vivendi with them satisfied all but a tiny fringe element.
And you know, just as it is impossible to completely eliminate other types of crime, it is impossible to completely eliminate terrorism. By simultaneously understanding and addressing the root causes, anticipating and preventing incidents, and curtailing the freedom of those who perpetrate crimes it is possible to significantly reduce it.
“I agree that a military form makes no sense beyond al-Qaeda.”
It is unclear why you think a military form makes sense in the case of a very small, scattered group of criminals that cannot be “defeated” in any military sense of the word.
I’m wih G Hazeltine in this respect: suggestions that the 9/11 attack remains to be explained are entirely proper. For my own part I am disinclined to spend time on any of the conspiracy theories, (including the outlandish one put forward by the Establishment) but that is my failing. Debates in which certain lines of argument are considered illegitimate are not free. And people who are not free to consider all points of view are halfway down the road which leads to the Palace of Idiocy.