Afghan Mission Is Reviewed as Concerns Rise

[bullypulpit]

<blockquote>Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development, according to American and alliance officials.

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16afghan.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1197817685-joN2aSYPfssupf0sqNlrow&pagewanted=print>The New York Times</a></blockquote>

Hmmm...Could the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which drew US resources and personnel from Afghanistan, and leaving the job there far from complete have anything to do with this?

Since the invasion of Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has become more and more unstable as the Taliban regain their foothold in that country, striking from bases in the Afghan/Pakistan border regions. And the commitment to rebuilding the country has been less than enthusiastic. As a result, the opium trade is flourishing, promoting corruption in the Afghan government and providing a major source of funding for the Taliban. Just another episode pf "Thank You, President Bush!".

Sources:

<a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/narmy125.xml>Armed Forces face 'failure' in Afghanistan</a>

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5029190.stm>Afghanistan: Taleban's second coming</a>

<a href=http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/1126-10.htm>Iraq War Diverting Resources from War on Terror, Experts Say</a>

[red states rule]

<blockquote>Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development, according to American and alliance officials.

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16afghan.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1197817685-joN2aSYPfssupf0sqNlrow&pagewanted=print>The New York Times</a></blockquote>

Hmmm...Could the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which drew US resources and personnel from Afghanistan, and leaving the job there far from complete have anything to do with this?

Since the invasion of Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has become more and more unstable as the Taliban regain their foothold in that country, striking from bases in the Afghan/Pakistan border regions. And the commitment to rebuilding the country has been less than enthusiastic. As a result, the opium trade is flourishing, promoting corruption in the Afghan government and providing a major source of funding for the Taliban. Just another episode pf "Thank You, President Bush!".

Sources:

<a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/narmy125.xml>Armed Forces face 'failure' in Afghanistan</a>

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5029190.stm>Afghanistan: Taleban's second coming</a>

<a href=http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/1126-10.htm>Iraq War Diverting Resources from War on Terror, Experts Say</a>

More surrender BS from the kook left

You guys will never be able to accept the fact Pres Bush was right. Iraq is improving, and you guys are depserate to find something to whine about

Now you are bellowing how we are losing in Afghanistan.

I would think your mouths would be full from the huge shitburger you are having to eat over your failed doom and gloom messages about Iraq

[Kathianne]

The problems are real in Afghanistan, though there too changes are already in motion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119638340937708801.html?mod=todays_us_page_one


In Counterinsurgency Class,
Soldiers Think Like Taliban
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS
November 30, 2007; Page A1

KABUL, Afghanistan -- A natural-born insurgent, Sgt. First Class Jacob Stockdill was brimming with malicious suggestions when a group of American soldiers and Afghan security men sat down last month to plot their own defeat.
[Jacob Stockdill]

"I can put a guy out on a ridge with an AK-47 and have him take a couple of shots," Sgt. Stockdill proposed to fellow students at the Army's new Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Academy. "The Americans will shoot back with their big guns and disrupt the whole valley.... Being an insurgent would be so easy." Capt. Chris Rowe finished his thought: "All you have to do is not screw up, and, even if you do, you just blame it on the Americans."

Six years into the Afghan war, the Army has decided its troops on the ground still don't understand well enough how to battle the Taliban insurgency. So since the spring, groups of 60 people have been attending intensive, five-day sessions in plywood classrooms in the corner of a U.S. base here, where they learn to think like a Taliban and counterpunch like a politician.

The academy's principal message: The war that began to oust a regime has evolved into a popularity contest where insurgents and counterinsurgents vie for public support and the right to rule. The implicit critique: Many U.S. and allied soldiers still arrive in the country well-trained to kill, but not to persuade....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102428.html#cooliris


Pentagon Critical Of NATO Allies
Gates Faults Efforts In Afghanistan

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 12, 2007; A01

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized NATO countries yesterday for not supplying urgently needed trainers, helicopters and infantry for Afghanistan as violence escalates there, vowing not to let the alliance "off the hook."

Gates called for overhauling the alliance's Afghan strategy over the next three to five years, shifting NATO's focus from primarily one of rebuilding to one of waging "a classic counterinsurgency" against a resurgent Taliban and growing influx of al-Qaeda fighters.

"I am not ready to let NATO off the hook in Afghanistan at this point," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. Ticking off a list of vital requirements -- about 3,500 more military trainers, 20 helicopters and three infantry battalions -- Gates voiced "frustration" at "our allies not being able to step up to the plate."

The defense secretary's public scolding of NATO, together with equally forceful testimony yesterday by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put on display the growing transatlantic rift over the future of the mission in Afghanistan. The Bush administration over the last year has increasingly bristled at what it sees as NATO's overly passive response to the Taliban, but European leaders have repeatedly rebuffed entreaties by Gates and President Bush to do more.

In recent months, officials said, Bush and his advisers have grown more concerned about the situation in Afghanistan; in contrast to Iraq, violence is on the rise there and the U.S.-led coalition is struggling to adjust to changing conditions on the ground. As the White House reviews its Afghanistan policy, officials have concluded that wide-ranging strategic goals set for 2007 have not been met, despite tactical combat successes...

[red states rule]

I wonder where this story is being reported in the liberal media


Afghanistan’s government flag was raised Wednesday on what had been one of the biggest strongholds of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and a leading world center of heroin production.

The town of about 45,000 people was secured at about 9:30 a.m. as Afghan troops, steered by British soldiers and U.S. Green Berets, drove out remnants of the Taliban resistance from Musa Qala in the opium poppy region of northern Helmand.

As the only journalist to join NATO forces entering the town, I found it a ghost town abandoned by both the Taliban and its residents at the end of an eight-day coalition operation. The offensive was one of NATO’s biggest in the country since Operation Anaconda in 2002.

Embedded with a team of British troops and a detachment/”A–team” of U.S. special forces, I watched the Taliban being pounded these last few days with overwhelming force — vapor trails circled in the clear blue sky over the Helmand desert as B1 and B52 bombers backed by A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships were used to kill hundreds of Taliban fighters.

The operation was launched last Tuesday with an attack across the Helmand River by British Royal Marine commandos, a thrust from the west by light armor of the U.K. Household Cavalry Regiment; all this, however, was a feint for the main airborne landing from the north of a battalion of soldiers of Task Force Fury from the 82nd Airborne.

Faced with a full brigade of NATO forces, a brigade of Afghan government fighters and the defection of a key Taliban commander, the Taliban chose not to flee at first but to fight a desperate battle.
Jules Crittenden has more:

Press reports will tell you that as many as 6,000 people have been killed in renewed Taliban violence this year, as the resilient militant group is resurgent, etc. Occasionally, the reports will tell you that about 5,000 of those dead are not even civilians accidentally killed when the Taliban use them as cover but … actually Taliban. The offensive followed some key local defections as locals reconsidered their involvement with the “militant” movement:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/12/14/taliban-goes-down-big-in-afghanistan/

[bullypulpit]

I wonder where this story is being reported in the liberal media




http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/12/14/taliban-goes-down-big-in-afghanistan/

If you'd actually bothered to follow the link to the source story, you would have found it on the <a href=http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/12/exclusive-eyewi.html>ABC News</a> website. Is that "librull" enough for ya? And, as history has repeatedly shown us one battle does not a war win.

And, as usual, you've completely ignored the bigger picture.

[Kathianne]

Damn, in one post I managed to agree with Bully and RSR. There has to be a moral there. :dance:

[bullypulpit]

The problems are real in Afghanistan, though there too changes are already in motion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119638340937708801.html?mod=todays_us_page_one



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102428.html#cooliris

First article...It's been six years and they're only NOW setting up this training program?

Second article...Of course Gates is going to point the finger anywhere but at his boss. The Bush administration does not suffer critics gladly.

[red states rule]

First article...It's been six years and they're only NOW setting up this training program?

Second article...Of course Gates is going to point the finger anywhere but at his boss. The Bush administration does not suffer critics gladly.

Lets see, libs have told us we are loing in Iraq, and now they are screaming we are losing in Afghanistan

Why is it with libs it is all doom and gloom all the time. You guys need to take a deep breath and admit you fucked up by siding with the terrorists and hoping for defeat

[82Marine89]

Hmmm...Could the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which drew US resources and personnel from Afghanistan, and leaving the job there far from complete have anything to do with this?

Invasion and occupation. That's a good one.:laugh2: Could the problem lie with a liberal media that concentrated more on stating the number of deaths than the number of successes in an attempt to embarrass a president that they don't like? Could the problem lie with a democrat controlled congress that cares more about attaching pork barrel projects to a military spending bill then they do about the boots on the ground? Maybe it's the cut and run liberals that were all for the enforcement of a UN resolution after 9/11, but didn't realize that people die during military conflicts? Now they want to blame the pubbies for something they also supported.

[red states rule]

Invasion and occupation. That's a good one.:laugh2: Could the problem lie with a liberal media that concentrated more on stating the number of deaths than the number of successes in an attempt to embarrass a president that they don't like? Could the problem lie with a democrat controlled congress that cares more about attaching pork barrel projects to a military spending bill then they do about the boots on the ground? Maybe it's the cut and run liberals that were all for the enforcement of a UN resolution after 9/11, but didn't realize that people die during military conflicts? Now they want to blame the pubbies for something they also supported.

I remember well during th 04 election, John Kerry nearly tripped over the TV camera wires getting to the reporters when the US death toll hit 2000

The libs were very happy reporting those deaths - but the coverage has dropped off sicne all the news has been good

[Kathianne]

First article...It's been six years and they're only NOW setting up this training program?

Second article...Of course Gates is going to point the finger anywhere but at his boss. The Bush administration does not suffer critics gladly.

I've never said that the administration has been error free :rolleyes: at the execution of the wars. Truthfully, Afghanistan was executed much better than Iraq, however as the Taliban adapted, neither the US nor NATO changed. And yes, it was noticed by better minds such as milbloggers.

Here is one of my posts that harkens back to Afghanistan and the problems that involved heroin:

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=3756&highlight=michael+afghanistan+taliban

Take a look around the 'Dawn Patrol' found at Mudville Gazette, where there have been literally hundreds of entries on growing problems in Afghanistan, from the end of 2005. Back in 2003 you'll find an entry sourced from AFP regarding Karzai's warning to poppy farmers and the threat from the Taliban.

That there are problems was well known, how they are addressed is another matter.

As for the criticism by Gates of NATO, that is not a deflection, rather NATO criticism has also been long standing. So is the desire to see it either reinvigorated or dismantled.

[Kathianne]

Here's a few more, Bully:

http://hoosierinva.blogspot.com/2006/12/need-now-for-afghanistan-study-group.html


...

It may be too late to save Iraq but Afghanistan has not yet deteriorated to the point of no return. Given the bad things that can come out of that country in central Asia judged on past history, whether terrorists or drugs, it is certainly worth our attention. Is it worth examining our policy and strategy towards Afghanistan to make corrections before it is too late? Do we need an Afghanistan study group to make recommendations like the current Iraqi study group?

Frederick Kempe thinks so and outlines what such a group needs to look at in SLATE:

Transform Afghanistan's drug economy and devote more resources to winning hearts and minds. Perhaps the most important lesson of Iraq is that the military alone can take and hold ground, but it cannot win today's wars, which involve complex stabilization and reconstruction efforts.

Nothing will be more important to success in Afghanistan than reversing the estimated 60 percent growth in its narco-economy last year, which now provides some 90 percent of the world's opium crop.

The West can't train police, judges, and civil servants as quickly as the Taliban and its allies can corrupt them. What's needed is an all-out, coordinated international effort that will take a decade at least to help the Afghan government not only eradicate the poppy fields but, more important, provide subsidies and programs for crop substitutions while protecting farmers from the drug lords who buy their harvest.

Clean up Afghan government corruption and expand central authority. U.S. officials complain that President Hamid Karzai is a good man but a bad manager and leader. He has the power to name provincial governors, but he hasn't shown that he can get them to do what he wants. Afghanistan won't work until he extends his authority, until he begins to prosecute corrupt politicians, and indict, convict, or extradite drug kingpins—most of whom are known to him.

Fix a dysfunctional multilateral system. International operations in Afghanistan operate under a G8 mandate, executed by U.N. bureaucracy, relying on troops under NATO command. It sounds like a good model, but many of those involved say it doesn't work.

At the moment, the United Kingdom has lead responsibility for drugs, the Italians for judicial reform, the Germans for police training, and the United States for military training. That leaves the critical drug war as too low a priority for too many countries. A senior U.S. official complains that the U.N. operation has been focused more on establishing a bureaucracy that can perpetuate itself than making it produce results.

Fix the NATO-EU rivalry. NATO badly needs to better tap the European Union's proven expertise in nation-building. The problem is that the two institutions, though both headquartered in Brussels, work poorly together because of historic rivalries, lack of tested institutional ties, and personal animosities. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and European Union foreign-policy czar Javier Solana are on bad terms. The European Union considers Afghanistan a NATO mission. Though many EU members are in NATO, most view their first priority as the European project. This West-West dispute is unfortunate in peacetime and dangerous when fighting a war.

Fix how NATO works. The alliance responds less to operational imperatives than to bureaucratic need and national sensitivities—Turks who aren't ready to shoot members of the Taliban, and Germans who, until the Riga summit, had a "caveat" on their deployment that wouldn't let them leave the relatively safe Afghan north for the more violent south. Italy and Spain have the same restrictions. NATO has insufficient intelligence capability and struggles to make quick political or acquisition decisions. One commander complained that he has been trying for years to acquire a tracking system that would protect his troops from friendly fire, because the alliance turned his need into "a 26-country industrial competition while people die on the ground."

Countries balk at their troops' use in rapid-response situations, because a lack of common funding means the countries that make physical sacrifices also foot the bill.

The fixes here can only be achieved if there is political will to provide troops without restrictions on their use, increase common funding, and, ultimately, move away from consensus decision-making to some form of majority voting that would take away veto power on NATO flexibility and effectiveness from the country that uses it most—France.

Press Pakistan to stop abetting the enemy. It's time for Washington and its allies to be clear that they will no longer tolerate Pakistan's continued failure to check the Taliban. Thus far, the West has balked at pressing the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, needing him too badly for other priorities, but Europe and the United States must send a clear, unified message that he must do more to help when our soldiers' lives are at stake.

NATO must turn back its enemies in Afghanistan or expect Islamic extremists to march on—a nuclear-tipped Iran, a Hezbollah-run Lebanon, a failed Iraqi state spawning global terrorists, and knock-on dangers in places like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

During the Cold War, NATO triumphed over Soviet Communism because it was ready to fight a war that never came. In the 21st century, NATO will succeed only if it can remake itself to fight a war that's already under way.



http://rjrcos.blogspot.com/2006/01/u_03.html


...
The move will leave U.S. forces in charge only in the eastern provinces, and only until NATO is ready to assume command there as well. That could happen later in the year, allowing the United States to reduce its troop commitment further.

The reduction, the first since the U.S.-led invasion, comes after a year in which nearly 100 American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, more than double the deaths during 2004. Military commanders said the higher toll was a result of their more aggressive strategy for battling the insurgency. They also asserted there would be a seamless transition when NATO troops take over, with help from the Afghan army.

"It's understood that NATO will be in a position to carry on the same counterinsurgency fight that we're running today," said Col. Don C. McGraw, who directs U.S. military operations here.

But the Afghan army remains in its infancy, and mounting a counterinsurgency has not been NATO's job. Questions remain about whether it will be willing to take on that task once its troops are deployed in the south, where on Monday, a suicide bomber in the city of Kandahar attacked a convoy of foreign troops, injuring a U.S. soldier and two Afghan civilians.

Until now, NATO has commanded the north and the west, which have been less violent than the south and the east. In Kabul, its troops have been a familiar and friendly sight on street patrols. In the countryside, they have spent much of their time coordinating reconstruction efforts -- and none chasing Taliban insurgents.

NATO's rules of engagement will be loosened when it takes over the south, allowing its forces to be more aggressive, but it is unclear exactly how much more. One member country, the Netherlands, is wavering over whether it wants to send troops to the area, (MORE EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP) a longtime Taliban stronghold that has recently been the site of numerous battles and suicide bombings. Maj. Andrew Elmes, a British spokesman for the NATO force -- officially called the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF -- said he expects its soldiers will primarily serve in a peacekeeping function, unlike U.S. troops, who have been initiating battles with insurgents.

"If you think of a policeman, who is armed but he doesn't go out looking for a fight, that's along the lines we're looking at," he said of the expanded ISAF mission, which will add 6,000 soldiers to the 9,000 currently in the country. (HOW DISGUSTING)

Some knowledgeable Afghans predicted that such a limited NATO role would not succeed in the more dangerous territory. "The threat in the south is terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime," said Ali Ahmad Jalali, who recently resigned as Karzai's interior minister. He spoke by telephone from Washington, where he now teaches at the National Defense University. "If they don't get involved in fighting those things, what will they be providing for the security of the country?"

...

[Gaffer]

Let's see, the taliban and al qaeda were driven into Pakistan. NATO took over security of Afghanistan. Most of the troops in Afgan were pulled back into defensive positions. The taliban were allowed to regroup and rearm in Pakistan. They have taken over western pakistan and are launching operations into afghanistan. They get weapons and training from iran.

Most of the NATO forces are not involved in combat situations, and the rest are just operating in the capture and withdraw mode. All due to politics. The war with islam will never be over as long as politicians run it.

[Kathianne]

Let's see, the taliban and al qaeda were driven into Pakistan. NATO took over security of Afghanistan. Most of the troops in Afgan were pulled back into defensive positions. The taliban were allowed to regroup and rearm in Pakistan. They have taken over western pakistan and are launching operations into afghanistan. They get weapons and training from iran.

Most of the NATO forces are not involved in combat situations, and the rest are just operating in the capture and withdraw mode. All due to politics. The war with islam will never be over as long as politicians run it.

Well said. Bully acts like the problem was Iraq, when in reality it's more likely the coalition of NATO that has not worked out in the long run. While the first 2-3 years were 'ok', since then it's been a problem, while our allies basically act like Blue Helmets for the UN.

[bullypulpit]

Well said. Bully acts like the problem was Iraq, when in reality it's more likely the coalition of NATO that has not worked out in the long run. While the first 2-3 years were 'ok', since then it's been a problem, while our allies basically act like Blue Helmets for the UN.

The problem WAS and IS Iraq. Leaving the job undone in Afghanistan and haring of to Iraq on the basis of cooked intel wasn't simply an "error" in the prosecution of the "wars". It was a misjudgment of monumental proportions.