Afghanistan: Endless war, poor intelligence, and astronomical costs

Withdrawal date extended, training of Afghan troops goes badly, US intelligence on Taliban is very poor, and there is little to show, outside of death, destruction, and corruption, for the tens of billions the US spends on the Afghanistan War.

The last few months of the US-led occupation of Afghanistan has done little to reverse the growing opposition among ordinary Americans to this costly and misbegotten intervention that appears to lurch from one strategy to another with little progress to show for it. Despite all this, the consensus among policy-makers in US government and military higher circles is that the occupation will continue until at least the end of 2014. Further, Gen. Petraeus and others have specified that 2014 is not a firm date for troop withdrawal. Whether there is any troop withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground.

There is another implication of this unfolding policy. While the US now has 100,000 or so combat troops in Afghanistan, along with special forces, an escalating air war, and more than 200,000 “trained” Afghan soldiers and police, news reports agree that the Taliban and various other insurgent groups are increasing their control or influence across the country, not only in southern provinces.
----------

Jason Ditz reports that the US occupation is now as long as the Soviet occupation, each lasting 9 years and fifty days, though the US occupation will continue years beyond Nov 25, 2010. Ditz notes that the US generals lack an exit strategy.

Source: Jason Ditz, “NATO’s occupation of Afghanistan as long as Soviet one,” Nov 25, 2010.
----------

Tom Engelhardt confirms Ditz’s reading of the situation and writes that US troops are not leaving any time soon, that is, “If you take the word of the Afghan war commanders, the secretary of defense, and top officials of the Obama administration and NATO.”

These high officials now agree that the withdrawal date of US troops from Afghanistan will be at the end of 2014, though General Petraeus waffles on this seeming consensus. Engelhardt refers to statements by Patraeus in which “he insisted that 2014 was nothing more than ‘an inflection point’ in an ever more-drawn out drawdown process.” Indeed, Petraeus insists that the US occupation “would likely extend to 2015 and beyond, which, Engelhardt says now puts “2016 officially in play.”

In the meantime – right now – US air attacks have increased. According to Engelhardt, “In Oct [2010], US planes launched missiles or bombs on 1,000 separate Afghan missions, numbers seldom seen since the 2001 invasion….Civilian deaths are rising rapidly….Special Operations’ night raids on Afghan homes by ‘capture/kill teams have tripled with 1,572 such operations over the last three months….”

The escalated military actions indicate that force now overshadows any attempts to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans. As a consequence, Engelhardt concludes: “Afghans will once again pay with lives and treasure in a war that couldn’t be more bizarre, a war with no end in sight.”

Source: Tom Engelhardt, “How to Schedule a War: The Incredible Shrinking Withdrawal Date, “ Tomdispatch, Nov 24, 2010.
----------

There is another serious problem with the US-led occupation of Afghanistan, that is, US intelligence of the Taliban and other insurgent groups is extremely poor. Gareth Porter discusses a recent example to illustrate this point. Porter writes that in the last few months General Petraeus has repeatedly remarked that the Taliban leadership has shown a willingness to talk peace with Karzai. Patreus has suggested that this is a sign that his strategy, whatever it is, happens to be effective. But the central, or only, Afghan person in this supposed unfolding negotiation did not represent any Taliban group. “…Petraeus even deceiving himself as well as the news media in accepting the man claiming to be the second-ranked Taliban commander Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour as genuine, despite a number of indications to the contrary.”

Then “on September 29, a Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Majahid said that Petraeus claims that the Taliban were negotiating with the Afghan government was completely baseless, and that the Taliban would not negotiate with ‘foreign invaders or their puppet government.’” Back to where we started.

Source: Gareth Porter, “Why Gen. Petraeus was Snookered by the ‘Taliban’ Imposter,” Counter Punch, Nov 25, 2010.
----------

The problems facing the US-led occupation of Afghanistan are not related to insufficient funding. According to Juan Cole’s review of the evidence, “the war is costing on the order of $7 billion a month, a sum that is still being borrowed and adding nearly a $100 billion a year to the already burgeoning national debt.”

Cole adds: “Although the US and NATO have spend $27 billion on training Afghan troops, only 12 percent of them can operate independently.” There is more from Cole. He writes “Karzai and his circle are extremely corrupt, taking millions in cash payments from Iran and looting a major bank for unsecured loans, allowing the purchase of opulent villas in fashionable Dubai.”

Source: Juan Cole, “Afghanistan: Obscenely Well-Funded, But Largely Unsuccessful War Rages Out of Sight of the American Public,” Informed Comment, Nov 19, 2010.

Negotiations, while airwar increases

The following headline from Democracy Now's program today (10-20-10) suggests that there is some tentative headway in efforts to toward a negotiated settlement between the Karzai government and various factions of the Taliban. which are being facilitated by NATO.

"US Allowing Key Taliban Factions to Attend Peace Talks

"New details have emerged on the Obama administration’s backing of peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The New York Times reports US-led forces have allowed senior Taliban leaders to enter Afghanistan for meetings with Afghan leaders in Kabul. The talks have included leaders of three key Taliban factions, including the Quetta shura, which oversees the Taliban’s armed operations in Afghanistan. In at least one case, Taliban leaders flew into Kabul aboard a NATO aircraft."

Dexter Filkins is the journalist who authored the New York Times article referred to by Democracy Now. Filkins opens his article on a hopeful note: "The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Talaiban war effort in Afghanistan. [In addition, leaders of two other factions are involved:] Afghan leaders of the Haqqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerilla factionrs fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in 'eastern Afghanistan'"

Filkins reports that NATO is providing transportation and security in bringing Taliban leaders to Kabul. He also notes that "the talks have been held on several different occasions and appear to represent the most substantive effort to date to negotiate an end to the nine-year old war...."

There are caveats. One is that the Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence is reported to be opposed to the negotiations without other Taliban leaders being included. Two, US officials do not see evidence of truly peaceful initiatives from the Taliban. Filkins writes: "As long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to make a deal." Filkins quotes Leon Panetta, CIA director: "If there are elements that wish to reconcile and get reintegrated, that ought to be obviously explored....But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile."

In the meantime the US airwar in Afghanistan is being escalated. Jason Ditz reports in an article on antiwar.com (8-19-10): "September saw a massive increase in the number of US air strikes in Afghanistan, with at least 700 distinct strikes across the nation, up from 257 the year prior." Ditz continues: "But the tactic may be even further on the rise in the future, as reports suggest that the Obama Administration has ordered the deployment of the USS Lincoln, another aircraft carrier into the region, adding scores of additional warplanes to the theater of operations."

It's not clear yet whether negotiations have any sound basis.