Now that a team of US Special Forces has found and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, what are the chances of the US government withdrawing the hundred thousand US troops from Afghanistan over the next 12 months or so.
Bear in mind the cost of maintaining this large force is not a piddling sum in an economy with 16 percent of the work force unemployed, given up looking for a job after months of searching for one, plus those working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job. There other signs of decline, including 59 million or so Americans who are without health insurance for part of a year or the entire year. There are also an unprecedented number of Americans who have been forced into foreclosure or who are paying more for their mortgages than their houses are worth and they can afford. There are other social indicators that times are hard for Americans. While wealthy people and most large corporations, especially in finance, pharmaceuticals, and oil, are making substantial profits and paying low actual rates of taxes, the overall trend in both income and wealth distributions show that only the top few percent of the population are reaping benefits. In the meantime wages stagnate or fall and more and more families are lucky to have even one member in a job.
If US policymakers decided to end the war/occupation in Afghanistan, and used the savings from the occupation/war for pressing domestic needs in our country, it would make a significant difference. Just one example. The Center for Budget Policies and Priorities estimates that the budget shortfalls for 44 of the 50 states will total $112 billion for fiscal year 2012, which begins on July 2, 2011. The anticipated state deficits could be paid for by what is now being spent on the US occupation of Afghanistan. The CBPP report notes that one of the reasons for why the state deficits is this: “Federal assistance for states, which has been enormously helpful in allowing states to avert some of the most harmful potential budget cuts, will be largely gone by the end of fiscal year 2011.” The $120 billion spent annually by the US government on the Afghanistan war/occupation would go a long way in averting the state deficits and in the process save tens of thousands of public-sector jobs. (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711)
Afghanistan War OptionsThere are three general options being considered on the issue of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, and this has been true for some years. I’ll start with the most conservative option, then consider the slow and hedged withdrawal option, and finally focus on the accelerated withdrawal option, the option that we at “stopafghanwar” have advocated.
The Republican/Conservative Option: Increase or sustain US troop levels and do what it takes to “win” the war in Afghanistan.From this perspective, US government policymakers and military leaders should support an increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. This is the position of Sen. McCain and most Republicans, excluding those with libertarian values. Max Boot writes in an article for Commentary magazine (4-19-11) that we need to build more military bases in Afghanistan to assure the Afghan government and people that the US will not again abandon them. Boot contends: “ if we are to safeguard hard-fought gains, we will need to maintain a military presence in that country for many years too, just as we have in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.”
Anthony Dimaggio refers to other Republican positions on Afghanistan, and writes:
“John McCain announced shortly following the ’09 Afghanistan escalation that any inclusion of a withdrawal date was ‘dispiriting,’ and would guarantee that Afghans would be less likely to ‘risk their lives to take our side in this fight.’ The withdrawal date, McCain argued, is one that ‘enemies can exploit to weaken and intimidate our friends.’ In March of this year, Republican Congressman Mike Coffman similarly announced that he was skeptical of a possible withdrawal, considering the ‘security interests in Afghanistan that we must accept…we need to make sure that the Taliban don’t take over the country.’ Coffman’s comments came at a time when a non-binding House resolution calling for a full, accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan (by year’s end) was defeated by a vote of 93-321, with only eight Republicans voting in support.” (http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio04262011.html)
The expectation of the Republicans and most conservatives is that additional US forces, as many as are deemed necessary, will finally result in the conquest of the Taliban and any other insurgents, the creation of a stable central government, the realization of Afghan military and police forces capable of maintaining law and order in the country, and a situation where warlords, drug lords, and tribal elders are willing to go along with the US project. When all of this is accomplished, the US would then be able to withdraw some of its troops with honor, its stature as the strongest military power intact, and in a position to influence geopolitical and fossil fuel issues in the Middle East and Caspian Sea regions. After all is said and done, winning and maintaining the US hegemonic position is what matters most.
The Republican/Conservative vision is, in the end, wishful thinking that will waste resources and lives and serve the further destabilize the world.
Second Option, Realists/Pragmatists in the Political Center: Surges in troop levels coupled with the Promise of Token Withdrawals of troops
President Obama and his administration are among the paramount realists/pragmatists when it comes to Afghanistan. They want to compromise. On the one hand, they want to continue the war toward an ultimate victory, that is, continuing the status quo in troop levels with periodic surges in troop levels. On the other hand, they will bend to public opinion and political realities with promises of the withdrawal of some troops and even actual, though token, withdrawal of some troops now and again.
The compromise is likely next to be based on token withdrawals, referring to an end date, say, the end of 2014, and hedging this date by specifying that “conditions on the ground” and recommendations from the military brass may lengthen the time the same level of troops, or more than now, stay in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has recently recommended that 5,000 US troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan beginning in July of this year (2011) and another 5,000 in December.
It’s not clear yet what Obama will do in July with respect of the status of US troops in Afghanistan. But it is clear that he savored the “victory” of bin Laden’s killing. Here again from our last post on this site is a summary of what Obama said on May 2 to the nation and world in his celebratory announcement of bin Laden’s death.
He suggested that after ten years Osama bin Laden had been located, thanks to “the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals,” and then killed by the heroic “men who carried out the operation.” The implications of bin Laden’s death are profound, in Obama’s view, because they take out the leader and symbol of al-Qaeda. His death “is not the end of our efforts,” the President said. Al Qaeda groups may be in disarray but they “continue to pursue attacks against us.” The President maintains that the costs of the war in Afghanistan and anywhere else al-Qaeda threatens the US or its friends, are justified and necessary for the sake of our country’s security. The war(s) will continue because “the cause of security [for] our country is not complete.” In the end, the President says, America will prevail because “America can do whatever we set out mind to” and because we are “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Will the president tilt to the status quo or support a token withdrawal in July? Whichever it is, Obama was exalted by the killing of bin Laden, with the implication that we can “win” this war in time. Bear in mind also that if there are token withdrawals, this does not rule out surges in troop levels in the future.
Anthony Dimaggo, whose article is cited above, suggests also that Obama will tilt for the foreseeable future toward the status quo, with perhaps periodic emergency surges. His argument is persuasive.
“In the case of Afghanistan, the Obama administration announced that the beginning of a phased withdrawal could begin as early as July of 2011, and continue through 2014. The 2011 withdrawal date was promised as far back as late 2009, at the same time that Obama announced his ‘surge’ of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Obama’s ‘09 withdrawal announcement, made simultaneously alongside his announcement of the escalation of war, was unprecedented in U.S. history. Rarely do aggressors provide an ‘exit strategy’ at the onset of their onslaughts. This novel development, however, reflected not so much the ‘democratic’ responsiveness of the Obama administration to the public (considering that most Americans opposed the war at the time, and continue to do so today), but rather a begrudging concession on the part of the Democrats that they can no longer pursue (a la Bush) bloody wars without a (at least vague) promised end in sight. Still the unprecedented escalation-de-escalation strategy should hardly be viewed as a ‘revolutionary’ development in U.S. foreign policy. After all, under Obama the Afghan war is set to endure for a grueling 13 years at minimum, considering the initial escalation of the conflict began immediately following the September 11th attacks. Furthermore, through the first four years of his presidency, Obama will have spent more on the military than even George W. Bush did by the end of his first term. If anything, Obama has demonstrated that imperialist policies and military escalation can be even more effectively pursued under Democratic regimes, with ‘anti-war’ figures like Obama farcically celebrated as a proponent of ‘de-escalation’ and ‘peace.’
A third option, Liberals, progressives, leftists: Planning for a responsible withdrawal of US Troops from Afghanistan over the coming 12 months
This is generally the position we on this blog take and which, according to recent surveys of American attitudes, a growing number of Americans endorse, namely, to have policymakers plan for a full withdrawal by some date in the near future.
Proponents - There are those, like us, who advocate the position for a quick withdrawal of troops, removing a majority of US troops by the end of this year and the remainder by the end of July 2012. After setting aside some of the “historic” reasons supporting our position, we then turn to immediate justifications, and finish by consideration a general consequence of ending the US occupation of Afghanistan in these terms.
PUTTING ASIDE SOME HISTORIC FACTS - Putting aside the fact that the US, with the significant assistance of Saudi Arabia, supported bin Laden and other foreign mujahedeen to fight against the Soviet occupation of the country during the 1980s. We helped to create al Qaeda in the first place. Putting aside the question of whether the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was necessary or not and the assertion that the Taliban leaders were unwilling to negotiate on whether to hand over bin Laden to the US or not. As Noam Chomsky has documented, the Taliban leaders had not slammed the door on further negotiations. Putting aside the fact that the US did too little to support the Afghan government and people after bin Laden fled and the Taliban were defeated. Putting aside the concern that the escalated and surged military occupation of Afghanistan is based on US interests in having an oil pipeline built through from the Casipan Sea region down through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. Putting such flawed or self-interest-based policies aside, there are other justifications for our position in favor of a quick withdrawal.
#1 - NO CLEAR GOAL - The US has not stated publicly a goal for staying in Afghanistan, except somehow to ensure that bin Laden is killed or captured (this is done), that al Qaeda is eliminated from Afghanistan (haven’t had a substantial number for years), and that al Qaeda must not return to Afghanistan in large numbers and use the country as its base of worldwide terrorist operations. This last point is based on the assumption that the Taliban will take over the Afghan government when and if a US/NATO occupation is ended and that this government will welcome al Qaeda to return to Afghanistan. The issue is taken up in the next point.
#2 – TALIBAN ARE NOT AL QAEDA – An article from Reuters, “Separating the Taliban from al Qaeda (February 7 2001) captures one of the basic differences between. The article refers to research by Kandahar-based researchers Alex Strick, van Linschoten and Felex Kuehn that has recently be released by New York University. The researchers found that:
“the relationship between the Taliban and al Qaeda was strained both before and after the September 11 2001 attacks, partly because of their very different ideological roots. Al Qaeda grew out of militant Islamism in the Middle East, notably in Egypt, which — when fused with the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan — created its own view of global jihad. Taliban leaders grew up in rural southern Afghanistan, isolated from world events. Many were too young to play a big role in the Afghan jihad, and had no close ties to al Qaeda until after they took power in 1996.
“’Many Taliban leaders of the older generation are still potential partners for a negotiated settlement. They are not implacably opposed to the U.S. or West in general but to specific actions or policies in Afghanistan. These figures now understand the position of the international community much better than they did before 2001. They are not seeking a return to the failed interactions between the Taliban and the international community of the 1990s. At present they still represent the movement,’ the report concludes.
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2011/02/08/separating-the-taliban-from-al-qaeda
#3 – SUICIDE ATTACKS IN AFGHANISTAN ARE LINKED TO OCCUPATION, NOT TO ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST AND SUPRA-NATIONAL GOALS
Consider the facts notes by Robert A. Pape and James K. Feldman in their book, Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It. They maintain that suicide bombings in Afghanistan increased in response to the impact of the occupation.
“In the immediate aftermath of America’s conquest, Afghanistan experienced only a small number of suicide attacks – fewer than 15 total attacks from 2002 through 2005. Suddenly suicide attacks began to increase by an order of magnitude – with 93 in 2006, 137 in 2007, 136 in 2008, and 98 in 2009. Moreover, the overwhelming percentage of the suicide attacks (80%) has been against security targets related to American and allied forces, and nearly all (90%) carried out by Afghan nationals.”
Pape and Feldman make the following point about the principal cause of the rise in suicide bombing. “Although there are multiple causes, one stands out: the growth and redeployment outside of Kabul of Western Forces in Afghanistan” (p. 34).
The implication of their analysis is that if you end the occupation, you diminish or end suicide bombings. Another implication is that the principal opposition to the occupation is home-grown, not international in its participants or ideology.
ETCETERA – The goals of making Afghanistan a democracy, social order, economic progress, etc., have not been achieved over the last ten years of the US military presence and surges.
Consider the following incomplete, but telling, list of points, which have been discussed one time or another on our blog over the last18 months of the costs and lack of success.
• the corruption used to consolidate central government power
. the central Afghan government has not earned legitimacy in the minds of the majority of Afghan people
• the continuing ethnic divisions
• the fact that the Afghan economy remains dependent on foreign aid and the production and distribution of drugs
• the warlords sometimes with their own militia
• infrastructure problems have not been adequately addressed
• the continuing discrimination against girls/women in state law and traditions
• the absence of a well trained and committed Afghan army and police force
• the poverty, limited education, and lack of opportunities for the majority of Afghans
• the US cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars on another endless war
• the casualties and deaths to American troops
• the rising health care costs for US Afghan veterans for both long-term or life-long physical and psychological health services
• public opinion polls indicate support for a withdrawal of troops – a Gallup poll conducted May 5-8 found that 59% of those surveyed favored bringing the troops home
Some implications
The withdrawal of a large percentage of US troops in Afghanistan is not likely next year or for several or even many years (decades?). At the same time, the opposition to the war is likely to grow. The difficulty is that there are so many problems besetting Americans that they may not be sufficiently galvanized for the level of protests that are necessary to achieve the quick withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan that the liberal/progressive/left so desires. And the electoral alternatives may not give voters the option of a genuine and heightened withdrawal of troops.
In the meantime, those reporting on the war, those engaging in the sustained collection of evidence on the war and its effects, and those offering proposals for an end to the Afghanistan war, will serve an important purpose – helping to keep the significance
Showing posts with label US withdrawal plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US withdrawal plans. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, November 26, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
US diplomatic facilities expanded, no firm date for a drawdown of US troops
The following four articles provide indications that the US will continue to have an enlarged diplomatic presence in Afghanistan over coming years and and that the US military will remain in Afghanistan after the July, 2011 drawdown date first mentioned by President Obama in December of 2009. It was in December, we may recall, that President Obama announced an increase in troops to be deployed to Afghanistan. At that time, the President also referred to the possibility that some US troops would begin to be withdrawn, beginning in July 2011. However, he never specified how many troops might then be withdrawn or if any troops at all would be brought home. He emphasized that any such drawdown of troops depended on conditions in Afghanistan and what his generals recommended.
There are two points that strike one from the four articles to which I refer below. First, the US government shows every indication of having a diplomatic and military presence in Afghanistan for years to come. Second, Republicans and the President seem to be virtually on the same page when it comes to a drawdown date. President Obama has said that some troops may be withdrawn from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011, but not necessarily. Republicans say this is too ambiguous and they want a policy that excludes any date or timetable. They suggest that we should leave it up to the generals who are in command. That could be in July 2011, or many years after that.
The first article reports on the contruction of US diplomatic facilities. The other three articles report on Republican opposition to any date or timetable for the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.
First article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/03-5
Rahim Faiez reports in an article posted on Common Dreams.org that the "U.S. government will spend $511 million to expand its embassy in Kabul," according to the US ambassador Karl Eikenberry. The construction project is "a demonstration of America's long-term commitment to Afghanistan. Faiez writes: "The project stated earlier this year and currently employes about 500 Afghans. Once construction is under way, more than 1,500 Afghan workers will be employed." There are other building projects in the works. Over the last two years, the US government has signed two contracts to expand American diplomatic facilities in Kabul and consulates in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat provinces that total $790 million, according to Eikenberry.
Second article: http://antiwar.com/2010/11/3/republicans-vow-to-target-already-disavowed-afghan-drawdown-date
Jason Ditz reports for Anti-War.com that House Republicans "have promised [that] one of their first orders of business is to attack President Obama's policy of possibly drawing down the number of US troops in Afghanistan." Ditz points out that Obama would probably have no trouble with such a Republican initiative because he, the Secretary of State, and his generals have never committed the US government to a firm drawdown date.
Third article: http://antiwar.com/2010/06/24/obama-disavows-july-2011-afghan-drawdown-date
In an earlier report last June, Ditz reports that President Obama announced that there would be no "hasty exit" from Afghanistan, clarifying that "the July 2011 drawdown date he set himself in December" (2009) was a date when the withrawal of an unspecified size would begin only if conditions on the ground in Afghanistan were sufficiently stable, that is, there existed a stable and legitimate Afghan government and an Iraq army and policy force capable of maintaining security.
Fourth article - Just Foreign Policy, Nov. 3, 2010, adds further evidence (see below) that the Republicans, not only in the House but also in the Senate, will be pushing for legislation that explicitly rules out any date or timetable, however conditional it might be, for a drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.
McCain hopes for fresh look at Afghan policySteve Holland, Reuters, Wed Nov 3, 2010 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A21K320101103
'Republican Senator John McCain said on Tuesday in the wake of big Republican victories in Congress that he hopes President Barack Obama will take a fresh look at U.S. war policy in Afghanistan. McCain won re-election to his Arizona Senate seat by a large margin, ensuring he will retain have a strong voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee as its ranking Republican member.
"In an interview, McCain told Reuters he was looking forward to a December review the Obama administration is preparing to give an update on the U.S. troop increase Obama ordered a year ago to try to repulse a strengthened Taliban.McCain, who is expected to visit Afghanistan soon, said he would like to see a change in Obama's decision to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops from Afghanistan next August."I can only speak for myself, but this date for withdrawal that the president announced without any military advice or counsel has caused us enormous problems in our operations in Afghanistan, because our enemies are encouraged and our friends are confused over there," he said.
[...]
There are two points that strike one from the four articles to which I refer below. First, the US government shows every indication of having a diplomatic and military presence in Afghanistan for years to come. Second, Republicans and the President seem to be virtually on the same page when it comes to a drawdown date. President Obama has said that some troops may be withdrawn from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011, but not necessarily. Republicans say this is too ambiguous and they want a policy that excludes any date or timetable. They suggest that we should leave it up to the generals who are in command. That could be in July 2011, or many years after that.
The first article reports on the contruction of US diplomatic facilities. The other three articles report on Republican opposition to any date or timetable for the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.
First article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/03-5
Rahim Faiez reports in an article posted on Common Dreams.org that the "U.S. government will spend $511 million to expand its embassy in Kabul," according to the US ambassador Karl Eikenberry. The construction project is "a demonstration of America's long-term commitment to Afghanistan. Faiez writes: "The project stated earlier this year and currently employes about 500 Afghans. Once construction is under way, more than 1,500 Afghan workers will be employed." There are other building projects in the works. Over the last two years, the US government has signed two contracts to expand American diplomatic facilities in Kabul and consulates in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat provinces that total $790 million, according to Eikenberry.
Second article: http://antiwar.com/2010/11/3/republicans-vow-to-target-already-disavowed-afghan-drawdown-date
Jason Ditz reports for Anti-War.com that House Republicans "have promised [that] one of their first orders of business is to attack President Obama's policy of possibly drawing down the number of US troops in Afghanistan." Ditz points out that Obama would probably have no trouble with such a Republican initiative because he, the Secretary of State, and his generals have never committed the US government to a firm drawdown date.
Third article: http://antiwar.com/2010/06/24/obama-disavows-july-2011-afghan-drawdown-date
In an earlier report last June, Ditz reports that President Obama announced that there would be no "hasty exit" from Afghanistan, clarifying that "the July 2011 drawdown date he set himself in December" (2009) was a date when the withrawal of an unspecified size would begin only if conditions on the ground in Afghanistan were sufficiently stable, that is, there existed a stable and legitimate Afghan government and an Iraq army and policy force capable of maintaining security.
Fourth article - Just Foreign Policy, Nov. 3, 2010, adds further evidence (see below) that the Republicans, not only in the House but also in the Senate, will be pushing for legislation that explicitly rules out any date or timetable, however conditional it might be, for a drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan.
McCain hopes for fresh look at Afghan policySteve Holland, Reuters, Wed Nov 3, 2010 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A21K320101103
'Republican Senator John McCain said on Tuesday in the wake of big Republican victories in Congress that he hopes President Barack Obama will take a fresh look at U.S. war policy in Afghanistan. McCain won re-election to his Arizona Senate seat by a large margin, ensuring he will retain have a strong voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee as its ranking Republican member.
"In an interview, McCain told Reuters he was looking forward to a December review the Obama administration is preparing to give an update on the U.S. troop increase Obama ordered a year ago to try to repulse a strengthened Taliban.McCain, who is expected to visit Afghanistan soon, said he would like to see a change in Obama's decision to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops from Afghanistan next August."I can only speak for myself, but this date for withdrawal that the president announced without any military advice or counsel has caused us enormous problems in our operations in Afghanistan, because our enemies are encouraged and our friends are confused over there," he said.
[...]
Thursday, September 9, 2010
High-level study group recommends significant reductions of US troops
Two high-level reports, one from the US, the other from the UK, call for policy options that
would increase the chances of significant reductions on US force levels beginning next summer.
The thrust of the reports, focusing mostly on the US report, is that the US should reduce its ambitions in Afghanistan from nation-building through counterinsurgency (winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people) because it is too costly and ineffective. Rather, the members of the US group, The Afghanistan Study Group, prefer a counter-terrorist approach, involving fewer troops and narrowly targeted at al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups. The goals in this case is one of deterrence and containment and lowered costs. It does not recommend a full withdrawal of US troops, but a reduction in troops and a different strategic goal.
I cite below sections of three articles to provide a sense of what is being reported on this alternative approach of the Afghanistan Study Group.
First, Jim Lobe provides information on the US and UK reports in an article titled “Calls for Change of Afghan Strategy Grow Louder, September 9, 2010. You can find his full report at: http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2010/09/08/calls-for-change-of-afghan-strategy-grow-louder
“Amid continued high levels of violence and a steady stream of reports of high-level government corruption in Kabul, a growing number of foreign policy specialists are urging President Barack Obama to reconsider his counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
“In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration’s ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "prospects for success are dim."
“Calling for an accelerated timetable for reducing the U.S. military presence there, the "Afghanistan Study Group," which also urged intensified efforts to reach a negotiated solution with the Pashtun-based Taliban, echoed many of the points made in the latest strategic survey which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Tuesday.
“‘(A)s the military surge reaches its peak and begins to wind down, it is necessary and advisable for outside powers to move to a containment and deterrence policy to deal with the international terrorist threat from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions,’ said IISS’s director-general, John Chipman, in introducing this year’s report.
"At present the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere," he noted. "(F)or Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests."
[….]
Second, here are sections from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s article, “Finding a Way Out of Afghanistan.” The full article can be accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-5
[....]
“At a moment when the administration and too many members of Congress have failed to explore alternatives to Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, the importance of this clear and cogent [bipartisan] report can't be overstated.
“The report offers a thorough analysis of why and how we must dramatically reduce America's footprint in our nation's longest and most expensive war. Although the war is justified by its proponents as an effort to eradicate al-Qaeda, the report notes that "there are only some 400 hard-core al-Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af-Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan's northwest provinces."
“Meanwhile, the war costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $100 billion a year -- about seven times Afghanistan's annual gross domestic product of $14 billion and more than the cost of the Obama administration's health-care plan. Considering that price tag alongside the number of troops killed or seriously wounded, the report concludes that "the U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice."
[….]
Third, Steve Clemons offers further views in his article, “Rethinking US War in Afghanistan, which can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-8
[….]
“Far from admitting defeat, the report acknowledges the many limitations of a military solution in a region where U.S. interests lie in political stability. The group's recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.
[….]
“….The group's core recommendations do not include full, immediate troop withdrawal, but rather a decrease in the military footprint in Afghanistan.
“The five key recommendations are:
1. Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion. Washington should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.
2. Downsize and eventually end military operations in Southern Afghanistan and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The United States should draw down its military presence - which radicalizes Pashtuns and aids Taliban recruitment.
3. Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known Al Qaeda cells in the region. They can be ready to act should Al Qaeda attempt to relocate elsewhere or to build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.
4. Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally led effort to develop Afghanistan's economy.
5. Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states, such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or from being a permanently failed state that exports instability.
[….]
“Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan - and failing in its efforts - than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program. This is money that could be used to better counter global terrorist threats far away from Afghanistan, reduce the $1.4 trillion annual deficit, repair and modernize a large portion of U.S. infrastructure, radically enhance U.S. educational investment, launch a massive new Manhattan Project-like effort for energy alternatives research - or put approximately 2 million Americans back to work.
“Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims - assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.
“The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice.
[….]
would increase the chances of significant reductions on US force levels beginning next summer.
The thrust of the reports, focusing mostly on the US report, is that the US should reduce its ambitions in Afghanistan from nation-building through counterinsurgency (winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people) because it is too costly and ineffective. Rather, the members of the US group, The Afghanistan Study Group, prefer a counter-terrorist approach, involving fewer troops and narrowly targeted at al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups. The goals in this case is one of deterrence and containment and lowered costs. It does not recommend a full withdrawal of US troops, but a reduction in troops and a different strategic goal.
I cite below sections of three articles to provide a sense of what is being reported on this alternative approach of the Afghanistan Study Group.
First, Jim Lobe provides information on the US and UK reports in an article titled “Calls for Change of Afghan Strategy Grow Louder, September 9, 2010. You can find his full report at: http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2010/09/08/calls-for-change-of-afghan-strategy-grow-louder
“Amid continued high levels of violence and a steady stream of reports of high-level government corruption in Kabul, a growing number of foreign policy specialists are urging President Barack Obama to reconsider his counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
“In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration’s ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "prospects for success are dim."
“Calling for an accelerated timetable for reducing the U.S. military presence there, the "Afghanistan Study Group," which also urged intensified efforts to reach a negotiated solution with the Pashtun-based Taliban, echoed many of the points made in the latest strategic survey which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Tuesday.
“‘(A)s the military surge reaches its peak and begins to wind down, it is necessary and advisable for outside powers to move to a containment and deterrence policy to deal with the international terrorist threat from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions,’ said IISS’s director-general, John Chipman, in introducing this year’s report.
"At present the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere," he noted. "(F)or Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests."
[….]
Second, here are sections from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s article, “Finding a Way Out of Afghanistan.” The full article can be accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-5
[....]
“At a moment when the administration and too many members of Congress have failed to explore alternatives to Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, the importance of this clear and cogent [bipartisan] report can't be overstated.
“The report offers a thorough analysis of why and how we must dramatically reduce America's footprint in our nation's longest and most expensive war. Although the war is justified by its proponents as an effort to eradicate al-Qaeda, the report notes that "there are only some 400 hard-core al-Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af-Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan's northwest provinces."
“Meanwhile, the war costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $100 billion a year -- about seven times Afghanistan's annual gross domestic product of $14 billion and more than the cost of the Obama administration's health-care plan. Considering that price tag alongside the number of troops killed or seriously wounded, the report concludes that "the U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice."
[….]
Third, Steve Clemons offers further views in his article, “Rethinking US War in Afghanistan, which can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-8
[….]
“Far from admitting defeat, the report acknowledges the many limitations of a military solution in a region where U.S. interests lie in political stability. The group's recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.
[….]
“….The group's core recommendations do not include full, immediate troop withdrawal, but rather a decrease in the military footprint in Afghanistan.
“The five key recommendations are:
1. Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion. Washington should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.
2. Downsize and eventually end military operations in Southern Afghanistan and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The United States should draw down its military presence - which radicalizes Pashtuns and aids Taliban recruitment.
3. Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known Al Qaeda cells in the region. They can be ready to act should Al Qaeda attempt to relocate elsewhere or to build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.
4. Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally led effort to develop Afghanistan's economy.
5. Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states, such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or from being a permanently failed state that exports instability.
[….]
“Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan - and failing in its efforts - than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program. This is money that could be used to better counter global terrorist threats far away from Afghanistan, reduce the $1.4 trillion annual deficit, repair and modernize a large portion of U.S. infrastructure, radically enhance U.S. educational investment, launch a massive new Manhattan Project-like effort for energy alternatives research - or put approximately 2 million Americans back to work.
“Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims - assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.
“The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice.
[….]
Monday, August 23, 2010
New US military facilities being built in Afghanistan anticipate a prolonged occupation
Just Foreign Policy (http://justforeignpolicy.org), is an up-to-date source for getting the highlights of numerous articles on Afghanistan and other countries. Among the many items on the website today, August 23, 2010, the following one is from a report by Walter Pincus. It provides information on the Pentagon's plans to build very expensive facilities in Afghanistan. According to the report, the facilities will not be completed before July of 2011, after President Obama's conditional deadline for commencing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country. The obvious implication is that, if there is a withdrawal at all, the Pentagon decision-makers think that the US-led occupation of Afghanistan will continue for some time after next summer.
Obama has also hedged his bets, as Tom Engelhart reminds us in the following quote from his book, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's:
"In his address [at West Point], Obama offered July 2011 as the date to begin withdrawing the first U.S. troops from Afghanistan. ('After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.') However, according to the Washington-insider 'Nelson Report,' a White House on-background press briefing made if far clearer that the president was talking about a 'conditions based withdrawal' that would depend 'on objective conditions on the ground,' on whether the Afghans had met the necessary 'benchmarks. When asked about 'scaling back' the American war effort, General McChrystal suggested a more conservative timeline - 'sometime before 2013.' Secretary of Defense Robert Gates referred vagule to the 'thinning out' of U.S. forces" (pp. 186-187).
From Just Foreign Policy, August 23, 2010:
Air base expansion plans reflect long-term investment in AfghanistanWalter Pincus, Washington Post, Monday, August 23, 2010; A06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082201670.html
Three $100 million air base expansions in southern and northern Afghanistan illustrate Pentagon plans to continue building multimillion-dollar facilities in that country to support increased U.S. military operations well into the future.
Despite growing public unhappiness with the Afghan war - and President Obama's pledge that he will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011 - many of the installations being built in Afghanistan have extended time horizons. None of the three projects in southern and northern Afghanistan is expected to be completed until the latter half of 2011. All of them are for use by U.S. forces rather than by their Afghan counterparts.
Overall, requests for $1.3 billion in additional fiscal 2011 funds for multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan are pending before Congress. The House has approved the money, as has the Senate Appropriations Committee. The full Senate has yet to vote on the measure.
In addition, the United States has already allocated about $5.3 billion to construct facilities for the Afghan army and the national police, with most of the "enduring facilities . . . scheduled for construction over the next three to four years," according to a Pentagon news release this month.
For example, a $30 million contract was recently awarded to build a regional military training center in Mazar-e Sharif, according to Col. Mike Wehr, engineer director of the combined NATO training mission. That facility, too, will not be completed until late 2011, and then it will be used to train Afghans in various military specialties, including engineering."We're only about 25 percent complete in our construction [for Afghan security forces], and there is quite a bit more to go over the next three years," Wehr told a defense bloggers roundtable last week. One goal of the NATO transition program is to have Afghans ready to maintain these facilities by 2013, Wehr added.
The three bases being expanded for U.S. use after 2011 reflect the expectation of continued combat operations, but they are just part of a broader expansion of U.S. facilities across the country.[...]
Obama has also hedged his bets, as Tom Engelhart reminds us in the following quote from his book, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's:
"In his address [at West Point], Obama offered July 2011 as the date to begin withdrawing the first U.S. troops from Afghanistan. ('After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.') However, according to the Washington-insider 'Nelson Report,' a White House on-background press briefing made if far clearer that the president was talking about a 'conditions based withdrawal' that would depend 'on objective conditions on the ground,' on whether the Afghans had met the necessary 'benchmarks. When asked about 'scaling back' the American war effort, General McChrystal suggested a more conservative timeline - 'sometime before 2013.' Secretary of Defense Robert Gates referred vagule to the 'thinning out' of U.S. forces" (pp. 186-187).
From Just Foreign Policy, August 23, 2010:
Air base expansion plans reflect long-term investment in AfghanistanWalter Pincus, Washington Post, Monday, August 23, 2010; A06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082201670.html
Three $100 million air base expansions in southern and northern Afghanistan illustrate Pentagon plans to continue building multimillion-dollar facilities in that country to support increased U.S. military operations well into the future.
Despite growing public unhappiness with the Afghan war - and President Obama's pledge that he will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011 - many of the installations being built in Afghanistan have extended time horizons. None of the three projects in southern and northern Afghanistan is expected to be completed until the latter half of 2011. All of them are for use by U.S. forces rather than by their Afghan counterparts.
Overall, requests for $1.3 billion in additional fiscal 2011 funds for multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan are pending before Congress. The House has approved the money, as has the Senate Appropriations Committee. The full Senate has yet to vote on the measure.
In addition, the United States has already allocated about $5.3 billion to construct facilities for the Afghan army and the national police, with most of the "enduring facilities . . . scheduled for construction over the next three to four years," according to a Pentagon news release this month.
For example, a $30 million contract was recently awarded to build a regional military training center in Mazar-e Sharif, according to Col. Mike Wehr, engineer director of the combined NATO training mission. That facility, too, will not be completed until late 2011, and then it will be used to train Afghans in various military specialties, including engineering."We're only about 25 percent complete in our construction [for Afghan security forces], and there is quite a bit more to go over the next three years," Wehr told a defense bloggers roundtable last week. One goal of the NATO transition program is to have Afghans ready to maintain these facilities by 2013, Wehr added.
The three bases being expanded for U.S. use after 2011 reflect the expectation of continued combat operations, but they are just part of a broader expansion of U.S. facilities across the country.[...]
Monday, August 16, 2010
Gen Pataeus advances idea of extending US occupation in Afghanistan
The Following two news items present some disouraging information, namely, that Gen. Patraeus is using his dubiously iconic influence to postpone the withdrawal process of US troops from Afghanistan. Since President Obama appointed the general to his present leadership role in Afghanistan, this may indeed become the accepted policy. If it should become the policy, the war without a reasonable public objective and with great costs to ordinary Afghans, the Afghan environment and infrastructure, and to American troops and taxpayers; the war that is opposed by an increasing percentage of American citizens and by citizens in most other countries; the unwinnable war that threatens to strengthen the US militarized foreign policy and continue to disfavor diplomatic initiatives, especially regional ones - will continue. If there are motives for this war, they involve imperialistic, non-democratic, interests.
First Item:
Headline from Democracy Now, 8-16-10
Gen: Petraeus Hints Scheduled Afghan Withdrawal Could Be Postponed
The top US military official in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, has launched a public relations campaign to build support for the US war effort. During an appearance on Meet the Press, Petraeus asserted that the US strategy in Afghanistan is "fundamentally sound," but he hinted that he might oppose President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing troops next summer. Although the troop withdrawal is scheduled to begin next July, Petraeus said the withdrawal date is not set in stone.
Gen. David Petraeus: "This is a date when a process begins that is conditions-based. And as the conditions permit, we transition tasks to our Afghan counterparts and the security forces and in various governmental institutions, and that enables a, quote, 'responsible' drawdown of our forces."
Second Item:
Gen. Petraeus Cautions Against ‘Rapid Pullout’ in Afghanistan
Posted By Jason Ditz On August 15, 2010
In a pair of interviews released today, General David Petraeus seemed to be setting Americans up for years of additional war in Afghanistan, cautioning against a “rapid pullout” while raising the possibility that he would oppose even a trivial July 2011 drawdown.
Rather Gen. Petraeus maintains that he is “not bound” by the July 2011 date and reserves the right to tell the president at that time, which will be just shy of the 10 year anniversary of the invasion, is “too soon.”
Though it is difficult to imagine how anything the US does at this point in what is arguable the longest war in American history would constitute a “rapid pullout,” Gen. Petraeus seems to be backing off all promises of “gains” by the end of the year, while the same time maintaining that the progress is being made.
But instead of being able to demonstrate this progress at a time when all of the metrics are showing a war getting worse and worse, the general seems to be trying to delay backing up these claims in the future, insisting only that he hopes to demonstrate the progress before July of next year. Even this seems to be at best prospective, and will likely get shrugged off in the future as the situation warrants.
Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/15/gen-petraeus-cautions-against-rapid-pullout-in-afghanistan/
First Item:
Headline from Democracy Now, 8-16-10
Gen: Petraeus Hints Scheduled Afghan Withdrawal Could Be Postponed
The top US military official in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, has launched a public relations campaign to build support for the US war effort. During an appearance on Meet the Press, Petraeus asserted that the US strategy in Afghanistan is "fundamentally sound," but he hinted that he might oppose President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing troops next summer. Although the troop withdrawal is scheduled to begin next July, Petraeus said the withdrawal date is not set in stone.
Gen. David Petraeus: "This is a date when a process begins that is conditions-based. And as the conditions permit, we transition tasks to our Afghan counterparts and the security forces and in various governmental institutions, and that enables a, quote, 'responsible' drawdown of our forces."
Second Item:
Gen. Petraeus Cautions Against ‘Rapid Pullout’ in Afghanistan
Posted By Jason Ditz On August 15, 2010
In a pair of interviews released today, General David Petraeus seemed to be setting Americans up for years of additional war in Afghanistan, cautioning against a “rapid pullout” while raising the possibility that he would oppose even a trivial July 2011 drawdown.
Rather Gen. Petraeus maintains that he is “not bound” by the July 2011 date and reserves the right to tell the president at that time, which will be just shy of the 10 year anniversary of the invasion, is “too soon.”
Though it is difficult to imagine how anything the US does at this point in what is arguable the longest war in American history would constitute a “rapid pullout,” Gen. Petraeus seems to be backing off all promises of “gains” by the end of the year, while the same time maintaining that the progress is being made.
But instead of being able to demonstrate this progress at a time when all of the metrics are showing a war getting worse and worse, the general seems to be trying to delay backing up these claims in the future, insisting only that he hopes to demonstrate the progress before July of next year. Even this seems to be at best prospective, and will likely get shrugged off in the future as the situation warrants.
Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/15/gen-petraeus-cautions-against-rapid-pullout-in-afghanistan/
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Big question - Will US troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 in large or small numbers
On the website Just Foreign Policy, Robert Naiman comments, in short statements and in outlines/excerpts, on articles that report on important issues regarding the Middle East and Central Asia (e.g., Afghanistan). You can find three of his items after my observations from today's list.
The first item reports on a public opinion polls that find (1) a growing percentage (48%) of those polled think ending the war is more important than winning it, and (2) 53% now disapprove of how Obama is managing the war
The second item reports on Rep. Nancy Pelosi's insistence that there will be "a serious drawdown" of [our] forces in Afghanistan by July 2011. She is skeptical about the occupation's effectiveness and says that we need to use the money now spent on the Afghanistan occupation for domestic programs.
The third item reports on General Patreus' testimony before a Senate Committee, in which the general makes three important points on the issue of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. (1) The Afghan army won't be ready to manage on their own for years. (2) The overal "security" situation in Afghanistan is "tenuous." (3) The start of the drawdown of troops in July 2011 is only the beginning.
The key implication of these items is that there is disagreement not so much about the beginning of a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, but about just how many troops will be brought home then. If Pelosi's views prevail, a large number of troops will be withdrawn in July and in the not-many-months that follow. If Patreus' views prevail, there will only be a few US troops pulled out in July 2011, and only a small number will be leave Afghanistan in subsequent months. The implication is that, according to Patreus' preferences (speaking for the US armed forces), there will be a large number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan, even after some additional years.
Perhaps the decisive factor in determining whether there is a substantial withdrawal of US troop or just a trickle of troops coming home is the state of public opinion. If opinion continues to go against the occupation and the president, Pelosi's views may win out. Though, of course, the US military-industrial complex is a ferocious and very influential opponent when it comes to defending its preferred goals.
U.S./Top News (selected from Robert Naiman, on Just Foreign Policy, on July 1, 2010 - http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/
1) Quagmire? Nine years on, Americans grow weary of war in AfghanistanBrad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, June 26, 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0626/Quagmire-Nine-years-on-Americans-grow-weary-of-war-in-Afghanistan%20
Americans approve of Gen. David Petraeus as the new US commander in Afghanistan. But after nine years and with mounting US casualties, support for the war itself is waning.
Until recently, the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan had become "the forgotten war" for many Americans - a complaint increasingly heard among US troops there.
But this week's sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as US commander puts Afghanistan - and especially how the fight against the Taliban is going - squarely back into public thought and concern.
Most Americans agree with Obama that McChrystal had to go, polls show. But they're far less supportive of the conflict itself, weary of what's become the longest war in US history.
A recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters finds that just 41 percent "now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan." More to the point, a plurality of 48 percent now say ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of those polled by Newsweek disapprove of how Obama is managing the war - a sharp reversal since February when 55 percent supported Obama on Afghanistan and just 27 percent did not. (Put another way, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama's Afghan policy has nearly doubled in four months.)
The same Newsweek poll finds that "46 percent of respondents think America is losing the war in Afghanistan (26 percent say the military is winning).
[...]
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan predicts that conservatives may "start to peel off" as well. "Not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America," she wrote this week. "There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, 'whatever that is,' as we all now say.
"Noonan continued: "The other day Sen. Lindsey Graham, in ostensibly supportive remarks, said that Gen. David Petraeus … 'is our only hope.' If he can't pull it out, 'nobody can.' That's not all that optimistic a statement."
2) Pelosi: There Will Be 'A Serious Drawdown' From Afghanistan In July 2011Sam Stein, Huffington Post, June 28, 2010http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/pelosi-there-will-be-a-se_n_628130.html
In some of the strongest terms she has used to date, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last Friday that the United States will see "a serious drawdown" of forces in Afghanistan by July 2011 and that the House may use the power of the purse to ensure the drawdown takes place.
In an exclusive interview with the Huffington Post, Pelosi made clear that while recent talk has hinted that the administration's stated goal of a June 2011 start date for a troop drawdown may be open to change, her commitment to it remains firm. "I think we'll have a serious drawdown, I don't think it'll be, as [the president] said, turning out the lights," said Pelosi.
Asked point-blank whether she thinks troops will be pulled out of the country in July 2011, Pelosi replied: "I do. And everything I saw there before, for all the bad things there that I saw in terms of [corruption and money wasted] ... I did consistently hear that the timetable was on schedule to have serious drawdown."
[...]
Pelosi, likewise, said that the president should be afforded the time and support to see his plan through, though her insistence on seeing some troops withdrawn in July 2011 suggests that she views the drawdown as part of the plan. The issue at hand, she notes, is not simply whether it made smart military policy to keep a troop presence in Afghanistan, but also if it was economically feasible for the United States to do so."It just can't be that we have a domestic agenda that is half the size of the defense budget," she said. "If you take away entitlements, the domestic discretionary non-defense budget is about half the defense budget, and maybe that's what we need to protect the American people. But in terms of the war now in Afghanistan, which is a growing part of it, that we have to say how can we carry this and can we carry this on the backs of children's nutrition. I'm not even talking about unemployment, there's so much else that is at stake.
"3) Petraeus warns it could be years before Afghan troops manage on their own
Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date 'only start of the process'; general tells Senate tough fighting will continueIan Black, The Guardian, Wednesday 30 June 2010http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/29/david-petraeus-obama-afghanistan
Barack Obama's candidate to run the war in Afghanistan yesterday pledged America's "enduring" commitment to the country, described its security as "tenuous" and called the presidential deadline for starting withdrawals next summer only "the beginning of a process".
[...]
Petraeus, head of US central command, endorsed July 2011 as the start of troop drawdowns, but insisted it was not the date when America "heads for the exits"; he warned it would be "a number of years" before Afghan forces could manage on their own. The pace of withdrawals would have to be responsible, he told a packed session of the armed services committee, as protesters in the audience held up signs reading: "New General, Old War."Petraeus confirmed that the military had not recommended setting that date.
June has been the most deadly month of the nine-year conflict, with more than 100 Nato troops killed, adding to an intensifying debate in the US and Britain on the prosecution of the war. Eleven UK personnel have died in the last 10 days alone.
Petraeus's careful language appeared designed to manage strains between the military and the administration, where some key figures are pressing for speedier disengagement from a war which has now been going on for longer than Vietnam in terms of US combat troop deployment.
[...]
The first item reports on a public opinion polls that find (1) a growing percentage (48%) of those polled think ending the war is more important than winning it, and (2) 53% now disapprove of how Obama is managing the war
The second item reports on Rep. Nancy Pelosi's insistence that there will be "a serious drawdown" of [our] forces in Afghanistan by July 2011. She is skeptical about the occupation's effectiveness and says that we need to use the money now spent on the Afghanistan occupation for domestic programs.
The third item reports on General Patreus' testimony before a Senate Committee, in which the general makes three important points on the issue of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. (1) The Afghan army won't be ready to manage on their own for years. (2) The overal "security" situation in Afghanistan is "tenuous." (3) The start of the drawdown of troops in July 2011 is only the beginning.
The key implication of these items is that there is disagreement not so much about the beginning of a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, but about just how many troops will be brought home then. If Pelosi's views prevail, a large number of troops will be withdrawn in July and in the not-many-months that follow. If Patreus' views prevail, there will only be a few US troops pulled out in July 2011, and only a small number will be leave Afghanistan in subsequent months. The implication is that, according to Patreus' preferences (speaking for the US armed forces), there will be a large number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan, even after some additional years.
Perhaps the decisive factor in determining whether there is a substantial withdrawal of US troop or just a trickle of troops coming home is the state of public opinion. If opinion continues to go against the occupation and the president, Pelosi's views may win out. Though, of course, the US military-industrial complex is a ferocious and very influential opponent when it comes to defending its preferred goals.
U.S./Top News (selected from Robert Naiman, on Just Foreign Policy, on July 1, 2010 - http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/
1) Quagmire? Nine years on, Americans grow weary of war in AfghanistanBrad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, June 26, 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0626/Quagmire-Nine-years-on-Americans-grow-weary-of-war-in-Afghanistan%20
Americans approve of Gen. David Petraeus as the new US commander in Afghanistan. But after nine years and with mounting US casualties, support for the war itself is waning.
Until recently, the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan had become "the forgotten war" for many Americans - a complaint increasingly heard among US troops there.
But this week's sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as US commander puts Afghanistan - and especially how the fight against the Taliban is going - squarely back into public thought and concern.
Most Americans agree with Obama that McChrystal had to go, polls show. But they're far less supportive of the conflict itself, weary of what's become the longest war in US history.
A recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters finds that just 41 percent "now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan." More to the point, a plurality of 48 percent now say ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of those polled by Newsweek disapprove of how Obama is managing the war - a sharp reversal since February when 55 percent supported Obama on Afghanistan and just 27 percent did not. (Put another way, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama's Afghan policy has nearly doubled in four months.)
The same Newsweek poll finds that "46 percent of respondents think America is losing the war in Afghanistan (26 percent say the military is winning).
[...]
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan predicts that conservatives may "start to peel off" as well. "Not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America," she wrote this week. "There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, 'whatever that is,' as we all now say.
"Noonan continued: "The other day Sen. Lindsey Graham, in ostensibly supportive remarks, said that Gen. David Petraeus … 'is our only hope.' If he can't pull it out, 'nobody can.' That's not all that optimistic a statement."
2) Pelosi: There Will Be 'A Serious Drawdown' From Afghanistan In July 2011Sam Stein, Huffington Post, June 28, 2010http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/pelosi-there-will-be-a-se_n_628130.html
In some of the strongest terms she has used to date, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last Friday that the United States will see "a serious drawdown" of forces in Afghanistan by July 2011 and that the House may use the power of the purse to ensure the drawdown takes place.
In an exclusive interview with the Huffington Post, Pelosi made clear that while recent talk has hinted that the administration's stated goal of a June 2011 start date for a troop drawdown may be open to change, her commitment to it remains firm. "I think we'll have a serious drawdown, I don't think it'll be, as [the president] said, turning out the lights," said Pelosi.
Asked point-blank whether she thinks troops will be pulled out of the country in July 2011, Pelosi replied: "I do. And everything I saw there before, for all the bad things there that I saw in terms of [corruption and money wasted] ... I did consistently hear that the timetable was on schedule to have serious drawdown."
[...]
Pelosi, likewise, said that the president should be afforded the time and support to see his plan through, though her insistence on seeing some troops withdrawn in July 2011 suggests that she views the drawdown as part of the plan. The issue at hand, she notes, is not simply whether it made smart military policy to keep a troop presence in Afghanistan, but also if it was economically feasible for the United States to do so."It just can't be that we have a domestic agenda that is half the size of the defense budget," she said. "If you take away entitlements, the domestic discretionary non-defense budget is about half the defense budget, and maybe that's what we need to protect the American people. But in terms of the war now in Afghanistan, which is a growing part of it, that we have to say how can we carry this and can we carry this on the backs of children's nutrition. I'm not even talking about unemployment, there's so much else that is at stake.
"3) Petraeus warns it could be years before Afghan troops manage on their own
Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date 'only start of the process'; general tells Senate tough fighting will continueIan Black, The Guardian, Wednesday 30 June 2010http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/29/david-petraeus-obama-afghanistan
Barack Obama's candidate to run the war in Afghanistan yesterday pledged America's "enduring" commitment to the country, described its security as "tenuous" and called the presidential deadline for starting withdrawals next summer only "the beginning of a process".
[...]
Petraeus, head of US central command, endorsed July 2011 as the start of troop drawdowns, but insisted it was not the date when America "heads for the exits"; he warned it would be "a number of years" before Afghan forces could manage on their own. The pace of withdrawals would have to be responsible, he told a packed session of the armed services committee, as protesters in the audience held up signs reading: "New General, Old War."Petraeus confirmed that the military had not recommended setting that date.
June has been the most deadly month of the nine-year conflict, with more than 100 Nato troops killed, adding to an intensifying debate in the US and Britain on the prosecution of the war. Eleven UK personnel have died in the last 10 days alone.
Petraeus's careful language appeared designed to manage strains between the military and the administration, where some key figures are pressing for speedier disengagement from a war which has now been going on for longer than Vietnam in terms of US combat troop deployment.
[...]
Monday, June 28, 2010
McChrystal resignation connected to his pessimistic assessment of conditions in Afghanistan
Here are excerpts from an article by Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady printed in The Independent (UK) online site, and my interpretations or comments preceding the excerpted sections (in red).
The last post: McChrystal's bleak outlook
President Obama lost patience with Runaway General's failed strategy
By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady
Sunday, 27 June 2010
The Independent – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook.html
The real reason General McChrystal resigned his position as military head of the U.S.-led occupation and war in Afghanistan is that McChrystal assessed the situation in Afghanistan as going poorly.
Sacked US General Stanley McChrystal issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.
Using confidential military documents, copies of which have been seen by the IoS, the "runaway general" briefed defence ministers from Nato and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) earlier this month, and warned them not to expect any progress in the next six months. During his presentation, he raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration.
General McChystal made gave a pessimistic presentation at the G8 summit in Toronto. The G8 subsequently
...called for "concrete progress" within five years on improving the justice system and for Afghan forces to assume greater responsibility for security. The implication here is that a large contingent of allied troops will remain in Afghanistan for at least five more years, and that the G8 members agreed with McChrystal's assessment.
Specific points made by McChrystal in his assessment, or "campaign overview":
...only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are "secure", governed with "full authority", or enjoying "sustainable growth". He warned of a critical shortage of "essential" military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as "effective".
...pinpointed an "ineffective or discredited" Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan "to curb insurgent support" as "critical risks" to success. "Waning" political support and a "divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines" are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.
According to "informed sources," McChrystal's assessment was as important in convincing President Obama to call for the general's resignation as the article in the Rolling Stone article.
[....]
Obama may have a political motivation as well.
General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring [some] troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".
[....]
The reality, according to a senior military source, is that General McChrystal's candour about the reality of the situation was an obstacle to Mr Obama's search for an "early, face-saving exit" to help his chances in the 2012 presidential elections. "Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," he said (or being put in a situation where Obama had to provide more details about his plan to withdraw troops by next summer).
[....]
U.S. Afghan policy will continue as before.
Admiral Mike Mullen met with President Karzai yesterday to assure him that the new Nato commander will pursue the same strategy followed by his predecessor. He pledged that General
Petraeus would also do his best to reduce civilian casualties.
McChrystal was too frank about his position that a successful occupation in Afghanistan will take more than six months and, implictly, some years rather than some months.
General McChrystal said progress in the next six months was unlikely. He raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration. Only five areas out of 116 assessed were classed as "secure" – the rest suffering various degrees of insecurity and more than 40 described as "dangerous" or "unsecure".
[....]
A strategic assessment referred to in the presentation revealed just how close the strategy in Afghanistan is to failing. It stated that the campaign was "on track temporarily" – but this was defined as meaning that there was "a low level of confidence that positive trends will be sustained over the next six-month period".
[....]
The last post: McChrystal's bleak outlook
President Obama lost patience with Runaway General's failed strategy
By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady
Sunday, 27 June 2010
The Independent – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook.html
The real reason General McChrystal resigned his position as military head of the U.S.-led occupation and war in Afghanistan is that McChrystal assessed the situation in Afghanistan as going poorly.
Sacked US General Stanley McChrystal issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.
Using confidential military documents, copies of which have been seen by the IoS, the "runaway general" briefed defence ministers from Nato and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) earlier this month, and warned them not to expect any progress in the next six months. During his presentation, he raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration.
General McChystal made gave a pessimistic presentation at the G8 summit in Toronto. The G8 subsequently
...called for "concrete progress" within five years on improving the justice system and for Afghan forces to assume greater responsibility for security. The implication here is that a large contingent of allied troops will remain in Afghanistan for at least five more years, and that the G8 members agreed with McChrystal's assessment.
Specific points made by McChrystal in his assessment, or "campaign overview":
...only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are "secure", governed with "full authority", or enjoying "sustainable growth". He warned of a critical shortage of "essential" military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as "effective".
...pinpointed an "ineffective or discredited" Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan "to curb insurgent support" as "critical risks" to success. "Waning" political support and a "divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines" are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.
According to "informed sources," McChrystal's assessment was as important in convincing President Obama to call for the general's resignation as the article in the Rolling Stone article.
[....]
Obama may have a political motivation as well.
General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring [some] troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".
[....]
The reality, according to a senior military source, is that General McChrystal's candour about the reality of the situation was an obstacle to Mr Obama's search for an "early, face-saving exit" to help his chances in the 2012 presidential elections. "Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," he said (or being put in a situation where Obama had to provide more details about his plan to withdraw troops by next summer).
[....]
U.S. Afghan policy will continue as before.
Admiral Mike Mullen met with President Karzai yesterday to assure him that the new Nato commander will pursue the same strategy followed by his predecessor. He pledged that General
Petraeus would also do his best to reduce civilian casualties.
McChrystal was too frank about his position that a successful occupation in Afghanistan will take more than six months and, implictly, some years rather than some months.
General McChrystal said progress in the next six months was unlikely. He raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration. Only five areas out of 116 assessed were classed as "secure" – the rest suffering various degrees of insecurity and more than 40 described as "dangerous" or "unsecure".
[....]
A strategic assessment referred to in the presentation revealed just how close the strategy in Afghanistan is to failing. It stated that the campaign was "on track temporarily" – but this was defined as meaning that there was "a low level of confidence that positive trends will be sustained over the next six-month period".
[....]
Friday, June 25, 2010
Obama backs off of a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in July 2011
Jason Ditz offers confirmation that President Obama is not likely to adhere to a deadline for the beginning of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The President has given himself the discretion of whether to commence the reduction in troop levels in July 2011. All along his statements have been ambiguous. The idea of a "beginning" of a troop withdrawal does not specify how many troops would be withdrawn.
Further, under certain conditions, there may not be a withdrawal at all, that is, if the conditions on the ground and the judgement of generals in the field indicate more time - and perhaps additional troops - are necessary. This may well be the case if the central Afghan government is still weak, has significant warlord influence, and is plagued by corruption. This is the case if there is too little progress in creating an effective Afghan police and army forces. This is the case if groups associated with the Taliban or other insurgents continue to be a threat to the Afghan government and various parts of Afghanistan. This is the case if the Pashtun continue to feel alienated and targeted by the Karzai government, police, and army. This is the case if the great majority of the Afghan people remain impoverished and without hope, except for anger at and getting revenge on the occupation and government.
Such conditions prove counterproductive in the sense that they create additional insurgents and Taliban adherents. In his recent book, hopes and prospects, Noam Chomsky refers to a study of Taliban foot soldiers that has relevance for how the occupation itself is generating insurgency and implies as well how the prospects for a negotiated peaceful settlement are immproved if the occupation is drawn down. He writes:
"A study of the Taliban foot soldiers carried out by the Toronto Globe and Mail, though not a scientific survey as they point out, nevertheless yields considerable insight. All were Pashtuns, from the Kandahar area. They described themselves as mujahideen, following the ancient tradition of driving out foreign invaders. Almost a third reported that at least one family member had died in aerial bombings in recent years. Many siad that they were fighting to defend Afghan villagers from air strikes by foreign troops. Few claimed to be fighting a global jihad, or had allegiance to Taliban leader Mullh Omar....Most saw themselves as fighting for principles - an Islamic government - not a particular leader. Again, the results suggest possibilities for a negotiated settlement, without foreign interference" (p. 244).
Despite findings like these, Obama appears to be committed to an indefinite occupation in Afghanistan. Other evidence is consistent with this view. For example, Chomsky points out:
"The Obama administration is also constructing mega-embassies in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are completely without precedent. Throughout the Gulf region, billions of dollars are being spent to develop 'critical base and port facilities,' along with military training and arms shipments expanding the US global system of militarization" (p. 63). And there are minerals in Afghanistan and the possibility of oil/gas pipeplines as well as the strategic location of the country. In the meantime, the Obama administration pushes the U.S. Congress to grant it supplemental funds for the war/occupation in Afghanistan.
In a word, indications are that the Afghanistan war/occupation is going to be a "long war."
“We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights,” Obama insisted, adding that “we said we’d begin a transition phase that would allow the Afghan government to take more and more responsibility.”
Officials have been dismissing the July 2011 date as largely meaningless in the first place, but President Obama has avoided comment on it, since his announcement of the most recent escalation in December.
Actually what President Obama said was that the US would begin to “start the pullout” in July 2011 at the time, and Vice President Biden was sticking with that story as recently as last week, saying that a “whole lot of people” would be moving out in July.
Biden’s comments were quickly disavowed by a number of officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Since Gen. David Petraeus was tapped to head the war yesterday, it has been expected that the date would be quickly disavowed, as President Obama did.
The date was little but an excuse to convince opponents of the surge to withhold judgement on the war at any rate, but its new role as the “beginning of a transition phase” has downgraded it to complete irrelevance, as officials have been claiming for years that they have been encouraging the Afghan government to take “more and more responsibility” to no real effect.
European nations which have attempted to put realistic timetables on the war have predicted several more decades of conflict on a number of fronts. The reality however is that there is no end in sight on this war, and even ridiculously far-sighted dates are just guesses of when the war will, for some reason, stop getting worse and start getting better. The evidence suggests that every escalation will just make matters worse, and officials have no strategy other than more escalation, making the prospect of such a turn-around unlikely, at best.
Share This
Send a letter to the editor Letters Antiwar Forum
Further, under certain conditions, there may not be a withdrawal at all, that is, if the conditions on the ground and the judgement of generals in the field indicate more time - and perhaps additional troops - are necessary. This may well be the case if the central Afghan government is still weak, has significant warlord influence, and is plagued by corruption. This is the case if there is too little progress in creating an effective Afghan police and army forces. This is the case if groups associated with the Taliban or other insurgents continue to be a threat to the Afghan government and various parts of Afghanistan. This is the case if the Pashtun continue to feel alienated and targeted by the Karzai government, police, and army. This is the case if the great majority of the Afghan people remain impoverished and without hope, except for anger at and getting revenge on the occupation and government.
Such conditions prove counterproductive in the sense that they create additional insurgents and Taliban adherents. In his recent book, hopes and prospects, Noam Chomsky refers to a study of Taliban foot soldiers that has relevance for how the occupation itself is generating insurgency and implies as well how the prospects for a negotiated peaceful settlement are immproved if the occupation is drawn down. He writes:
"A study of the Taliban foot soldiers carried out by the Toronto Globe and Mail, though not a scientific survey as they point out, nevertheless yields considerable insight. All were Pashtuns, from the Kandahar area. They described themselves as mujahideen, following the ancient tradition of driving out foreign invaders. Almost a third reported that at least one family member had died in aerial bombings in recent years. Many siad that they were fighting to defend Afghan villagers from air strikes by foreign troops. Few claimed to be fighting a global jihad, or had allegiance to Taliban leader Mullh Omar....Most saw themselves as fighting for principles - an Islamic government - not a particular leader. Again, the results suggest possibilities for a negotiated settlement, without foreign interference" (p. 244).
Despite findings like these, Obama appears to be committed to an indefinite occupation in Afghanistan. Other evidence is consistent with this view. For example, Chomsky points out:
"The Obama administration is also constructing mega-embassies in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are completely without precedent. Throughout the Gulf region, billions of dollars are being spent to develop 'critical base and port facilities,' along with military training and arms shipments expanding the US global system of militarization" (p. 63). And there are minerals in Afghanistan and the possibility of oil/gas pipeplines as well as the strategic location of the country. In the meantime, the Obama administration pushes the U.S. Congress to grant it supplemental funds for the war/occupation in Afghanistan.
In a word, indications are that the Afghanistan war/occupation is going to be a "long war."
The article:
Obama Disavows July 2011 Afghan Drawdown Date
Insists Date Just the 'Beginning of a Transition Phase'
by Jason Ditz, June 24, 2010
Share This
Antiwar Forum
“We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights,” Obama insisted, adding that “we said we’d begin a transition phase that would allow the Afghan government to take more and more responsibility.”
Officials have been dismissing the July 2011 date as largely meaningless in the first place, but President Obama has avoided comment on it, since his announcement of the most recent escalation in December.
Actually what President Obama said was that the US would begin to “start the pullout” in July 2011 at the time, and Vice President Biden was sticking with that story as recently as last week, saying that a “whole lot of people” would be moving out in July.
Biden’s comments were quickly disavowed by a number of officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Since Gen. David Petraeus was tapped to head the war yesterday, it has been expected that the date would be quickly disavowed, as President Obama did.
The date was little but an excuse to convince opponents of the surge to withhold judgement on the war at any rate, but its new role as the “beginning of a transition phase” has downgraded it to complete irrelevance, as officials have been claiming for years that they have been encouraging the Afghan government to take “more and more responsibility” to no real effect.
European nations which have attempted to put realistic timetables on the war have predicted several more decades of conflict on a number of fronts. The reality however is that there is no end in sight on this war, and even ridiculously far-sighted dates are just guesses of when the war will, for some reason, stop getting worse and start getting better. The evidence suggests that every escalation will just make matters worse, and officials have no strategy other than more escalation, making the prospect of such a turn-around unlikely, at best.
Share This
Send a letter to the editor Letters Antiwar Forum
Sunday, May 16, 2010
US military/gov optimism dashed on the ground in Afghanistan
I have quoted some of the points from an article by Patrick Cockburn that were published in The Independent online site on May 16, 2010. The gist of the article is captured by the title, "'Nobody is winning' admits McChrystal." You can find the full article at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/nobody-is-winning-admits-mcchrystal-1974697.html.
From what I've been reading, the Obama administration/Pentagon generals may well fulfill the promise of "beginning" a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. However, this may turn out to be a very small and slow troop withdrawal, given the lack of military success so far in subduing the "enemy." Indeed, the Occupation/war may be drawn out for many years to come. Cockburn offers evidence that as of now there is no better than a military stalemate between US-led forces and insurgents. Part of the problem, Cockburn emphasizes, is that US leaders have yet to understand that they are embroiled in a civil war in which they have implicitly taken sides.
In what promises to be an extended war and occupation, there are many losers, including, for example, the Afghan civilian population, the continued destruction of Afghan villages and infrastructure, the increasing number of US troop casulaties, the American taxpayers and the society as a whole as debt-financed wars deepen the national debt, and the lack of progress by the Obama administration in diminishing the US economy's growing dependence on foreign oil.
---------------------------
Quotes from Cockburng's article.
'Nobody is winning,' admits McChrystal
The weakness of the Kabul government is hindering attempts by US and Nato forces to gain much ground from the insurgents
By Patrick Cockburn
Sunday, 16 May 2010
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in London yesterday as US generals express doubts that the fight against the Taliban is having any success.
"The US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who was boasting of military progress only three months ago, confessed last week that "nobody is winning". His only claim now is that the Taliban have lost momentum compared with last year."
[....]
"... the failure so far of General McChrystal's strategy of using his troops to seize Taliban strongholds and, once cleared, hand them over to Afghan forces. He sold this plan, under which he was promised an extra 30,000 US troops, last November but all the signs are that it is not working. Starting in February, 15,000 US, British and Afghan troops started taking over the Taliban-held area of Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand province."
[....}
"Three months after the operation in Marjah, however, local people say that the Taliban still control the area at night. Shops are still closed and no schools have reopened. Education officials who returned at the height of the US-led offensive have fled again. The local governor says he has just one temporary teacher teaching 60 children in the ruins of a school. Aid is not arriving. The Taliban are replacing mines, the notorious IEDs, removed by US troops and often use the same holes to hide them in.
"Pentagon officials increasingly agree with the Afghan villagers that the Marjah operation failed to end Taliban control and put the Afghan government in charge. This puts in doubt General McChrystal's whole strategy which also governs the way in which 10,000 British troops are deployed. He is being held to account for earlier optimism such as his claim at the height of Marjah offensive that "we've got a government in a box ready to roll in". Three months later, people in Marjah say they have yet to see much sign of the Afghan government.
"Lack of success in Marjah is feeding doubts about the promised US-led offensive in Kandahar, parts of which are under Taliban control. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned against destroying the city in order to save it.... Local elders have lobbied against it on the grounds that it will bring nothing but ruin to their city.
"So far the much-heralded attempt to turn the tide in Kandahar has simply terrified local people about what is to come. US and Nato supply columns thunder through the narrow streets, the soldiers guarding them gesturing menacingly to Afghan vehicles not to get too close. "An atmosphere of terror is hanging over Kandahar," Ahmad Wali Karzai, the president's much-criticised brother who is also head of the local council, is quoted as saying. 'People are breathing terror here.'"
[....]
From what I've been reading, the Obama administration/Pentagon generals may well fulfill the promise of "beginning" a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. However, this may turn out to be a very small and slow troop withdrawal, given the lack of military success so far in subduing the "enemy." Indeed, the Occupation/war may be drawn out for many years to come. Cockburn offers evidence that as of now there is no better than a military stalemate between US-led forces and insurgents. Part of the problem, Cockburn emphasizes, is that US leaders have yet to understand that they are embroiled in a civil war in which they have implicitly taken sides.
In what promises to be an extended war and occupation, there are many losers, including, for example, the Afghan civilian population, the continued destruction of Afghan villages and infrastructure, the increasing number of US troop casulaties, the American taxpayers and the society as a whole as debt-financed wars deepen the national debt, and the lack of progress by the Obama administration in diminishing the US economy's growing dependence on foreign oil.
---------------------------
Quotes from Cockburng's article.
'Nobody is winning,' admits McChrystal
The weakness of the Kabul government is hindering attempts by US and Nato forces to gain much ground from the insurgents
By Patrick Cockburn
Sunday, 16 May 2010
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in London yesterday as US generals express doubts that the fight against the Taliban is having any success.
"The US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who was boasting of military progress only three months ago, confessed last week that "nobody is winning". His only claim now is that the Taliban have lost momentum compared with last year."
[....]
"... the failure so far of General McChrystal's strategy of using his troops to seize Taliban strongholds and, once cleared, hand them over to Afghan forces. He sold this plan, under which he was promised an extra 30,000 US troops, last November but all the signs are that it is not working. Starting in February, 15,000 US, British and Afghan troops started taking over the Taliban-held area of Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand province."
[....}
"Three months after the operation in Marjah, however, local people say that the Taliban still control the area at night. Shops are still closed and no schools have reopened. Education officials who returned at the height of the US-led offensive have fled again. The local governor says he has just one temporary teacher teaching 60 children in the ruins of a school. Aid is not arriving. The Taliban are replacing mines, the notorious IEDs, removed by US troops and often use the same holes to hide them in.
"Pentagon officials increasingly agree with the Afghan villagers that the Marjah operation failed to end Taliban control and put the Afghan government in charge. This puts in doubt General McChrystal's whole strategy which also governs the way in which 10,000 British troops are deployed. He is being held to account for earlier optimism such as his claim at the height of Marjah offensive that "we've got a government in a box ready to roll in". Three months later, people in Marjah say they have yet to see much sign of the Afghan government.
"Lack of success in Marjah is feeding doubts about the promised US-led offensive in Kandahar, parts of which are under Taliban control. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned against destroying the city in order to save it.... Local elders have lobbied against it on the grounds that it will bring nothing but ruin to their city.
"So far the much-heralded attempt to turn the tide in Kandahar has simply terrified local people about what is to come. US and Nato supply columns thunder through the narrow streets, the soldiers guarding them gesturing menacingly to Afghan vehicles not to get too close. "An atmosphere of terror is hanging over Kandahar," Ahmad Wali Karzai, the president's much-criticised brother who is also head of the local council, is quoted as saying. 'People are breathing terror here.'"
[....]
Monday, May 10, 2010
Peace candidates could stir a debate on Afghanistan policy
Bill Boyarsky has an article on Truthdig.com that has some relevance for the position we take on this website, namely, to end the US-led war in Afghanistan. The article, "America's War Disease," can be found at: http://truthdig.com/report/item/americas_war_disease_20100507
The thrust of Boyarsky's article is to offer hope for a timely withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in a situation where President Obama is increasing troop levels in the country, where liberal congressional representatives are by and large supporting Obama's policy, where the media have virtually ceased covering the issue, and at a time when the country is saddled with a host of crises that redirect the attention of the society in other directions. The basis for his hope is that there are some peace candidates running against incumbent office-holders in congressional elections.
One such peace candidate is Marcy Winograd, who is challenging incumbent Jane Harmon in the Democratic Primary. The congressional district involved "reaches from the Los Angeles suburbs through beach cities and inland cities. It is a district that Harmon has represented from 1993 to 1998, and then from 2000 to the present.
While Winograd and Harmon agree on many progressive issues, they have different positions on Afghanistan policy. Harmon supports President Obama's policy of a "carefully calibrated timetable, flexibly based on conditions on the ground. Harmon voted against a resolution brought to the House floor by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). The resolution called for a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan within 30 days of the passage of his bill and assistance to Afghanistan in rebuilding its war-torn society. Unlike Harmon, Winograd says she would have support the Kucinich resolution.
Boyarsky is excited about the candidacies of peace supporters for congressional seats, because they will help stimulate, he thinks, a debate over our embroilment in Afghanistan (and in Iraq and Israel-Palestine). But there are not many peace candidates and they aren't given much of a chance to win. In the case of the Harmon-Winograd electoral race, Harmon has the party establishment's support, much more name recognition, and more money to spend on her election than Wiongrad. In addition, the electorate is more concerned about housing foreclosures, unemployment, state budget shortfalls and cuts in services, than the war in Afghanistan.
We would love to see Winograd unseat Harmon, but think it's unlikely. We do not deny that one factor in a movement for a transformed foreign policy would include courageous and dedicated candidates like Harmon, along with an aroused public. Unfortunately, at the moment, the odds do not look good for peace candidates. Thus, to quote the last sentence of Boyarsky' article, "Otherwise, the US will continue to be mired in this fruitless war." And we add, with more on the horizon.
The thrust of Boyarsky's article is to offer hope for a timely withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in a situation where President Obama is increasing troop levels in the country, where liberal congressional representatives are by and large supporting Obama's policy, where the media have virtually ceased covering the issue, and at a time when the country is saddled with a host of crises that redirect the attention of the society in other directions. The basis for his hope is that there are some peace candidates running against incumbent office-holders in congressional elections.
One such peace candidate is Marcy Winograd, who is challenging incumbent Jane Harmon in the Democratic Primary. The congressional district involved "reaches from the Los Angeles suburbs through beach cities and inland cities. It is a district that Harmon has represented from 1993 to 1998, and then from 2000 to the present.
While Winograd and Harmon agree on many progressive issues, they have different positions on Afghanistan policy. Harmon supports President Obama's policy of a "carefully calibrated timetable, flexibly based on conditions on the ground. Harmon voted against a resolution brought to the House floor by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). The resolution called for a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan within 30 days of the passage of his bill and assistance to Afghanistan in rebuilding its war-torn society. Unlike Harmon, Winograd says she would have support the Kucinich resolution.
Boyarsky is excited about the candidacies of peace supporters for congressional seats, because they will help stimulate, he thinks, a debate over our embroilment in Afghanistan (and in Iraq and Israel-Palestine). But there are not many peace candidates and they aren't given much of a chance to win. In the case of the Harmon-Winograd electoral race, Harmon has the party establishment's support, much more name recognition, and more money to spend on her election than Wiongrad. In addition, the electorate is more concerned about housing foreclosures, unemployment, state budget shortfalls and cuts in services, than the war in Afghanistan.
We would love to see Winograd unseat Harmon, but think it's unlikely. We do not deny that one factor in a movement for a transformed foreign policy would include courageous and dedicated candidates like Harmon, along with an aroused public. Unfortunately, at the moment, the odds do not look good for peace candidates. Thus, to quote the last sentence of Boyarsky' article, "Otherwise, the US will continue to be mired in this fruitless war." And we add, with more on the horizon.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Gen. Patraeus says no timetable for ending US occupation of Afghanistan
The important point in the following article on an interview with Gen. Patraeus, the commander of CENTCOM (e.g., including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc), is that Patraeus seems not to acknowledge that President Obama has set a target for the beginning of a withdrawal of US troops in the summer of 2011. Rather, the report suggests that any withdrawal of US troops will not likely begin until some unspecified years after that.
One implication: This is a stark example of the power of the military in US foreign policy. It is also a failure to accept the limits of American military power, a central theme of Andrew J. Backvich's widely read book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.
At the same time, Afghanistan is important to US leaders and advisers because it is located in an oil-rich part of the Casbian-Sea region and close to the biggest reserves of oil that lie in the Middle East. The US, as presently organized, needs this oil for herself and for her strategic allies in Europe and Japan. But there are now other countries who are bidding on or gaining access to the oil reserves in Central Asia and the Middle East, particularly China and Russia.
If the US loses her privileged access to these sources of oil, US international hegemony, already on the wain, would continue to decline. On this point, there is no better source than the work of Michael T. Klare. His most recent book is titled Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
The upshot: Without her military power, the US is sunk and the capitalist economy is then in deep trouble, that is, unless there is a transformation of its political and economic structure based on a green economy and new cooperative international agreements.
Bob
------------------------------
Gen. Patraeus: Afghan War Will Take Longer Than Iraq
CENTCOM Commander Hasn't Heard Any Talk of a Timetable
by Jason Ditz, January 24, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/24/gen-petraeus-afghan-war-will-take-longer-than-Iraq
In an in-depth interview with the Times of London gearing up for the London Conference on Afghanistan later this week, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus again cautioned that the war was going to “get harder before it gets easier.”
Likening the January 2007 surge in Iraq to President Obama’s December escalation, the general said he thought that the war in Afghanistan was going to take longer than the war in Iraq.
Perhaps even more troubling over eight years after the war began, Gen. Petraeus insisted he still hasn’t heard any talk of setting a timetable for the end of the war, and said any predictions would be “premature.” Several nations had hoped to use the London Conference to set out some sort of exit strategy for the seemingly endless conflict.
In fact, Petraeus suggested that the London Conference would not so much focus on setting a timetable for a transition, but on deciding “what transition actually means.” Though he provided little in the way of detail, it does suggest that officials have abandoned the pretense of starting the pullout in 2011.
One implication: This is a stark example of the power of the military in US foreign policy. It is also a failure to accept the limits of American military power, a central theme of Andrew J. Backvich's widely read book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.
At the same time, Afghanistan is important to US leaders and advisers because it is located in an oil-rich part of the Casbian-Sea region and close to the biggest reserves of oil that lie in the Middle East. The US, as presently organized, needs this oil for herself and for her strategic allies in Europe and Japan. But there are now other countries who are bidding on or gaining access to the oil reserves in Central Asia and the Middle East, particularly China and Russia.
If the US loses her privileged access to these sources of oil, US international hegemony, already on the wain, would continue to decline. On this point, there is no better source than the work of Michael T. Klare. His most recent book is titled Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
The upshot: Without her military power, the US is sunk and the capitalist economy is then in deep trouble, that is, unless there is a transformation of its political and economic structure based on a green economy and new cooperative international agreements.
Bob
------------------------------
Gen. Patraeus: Afghan War Will Take Longer Than Iraq
CENTCOM Commander Hasn't Heard Any Talk of a Timetable
by Jason Ditz, January 24, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/24/gen-petraeus-afghan-war-will-take-longer-than-Iraq
In an in-depth interview with the Times of London gearing up for the London Conference on Afghanistan later this week, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus again cautioned that the war was going to “get harder before it gets easier.”
Likening the January 2007 surge in Iraq to President Obama’s December escalation, the general said he thought that the war in Afghanistan was going to take longer than the war in Iraq.
Perhaps even more troubling over eight years after the war began, Gen. Petraeus insisted he still hasn’t heard any talk of setting a timetable for the end of the war, and said any predictions would be “premature.” Several nations had hoped to use the London Conference to set out some sort of exit strategy for the seemingly endless conflict.
In fact, Petraeus suggested that the London Conference would not so much focus on setting a timetable for a transition, but on deciding “what transition actually means.” Though he provided little in the way of detail, it does suggest that officials have abandoned the pretense of starting the pullout in 2011.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
US and UK put pressure on Karzai government
Here are the principal points from an article found in today's Independent newspaper (UK, on-line).
The US and UK administrations are putting pressure on President Karzai to expedite efforts to ban a key ingredient used in "improvised roadside explosives.
Karzai is also being asked to meet certain deadlines with respect to the number of Afghans sent to the British and US trainers for police and military training. General McCrystal wants training to be completed by October 2011 for a total of 171,000 troops and 134,000 police.
Bob
--------------------------------
On the eve of a London conference on his country, Afghanistan's President bans key ingredient used in insurgents' bombs
By Jane Merrick
Sunday, 24 January 2010 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/karzai-takes-on-the-roadside-bombmakers-1877279
President Hamid Karzai has banned a key ingredient in the roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of British, American and Nato soldiers in his country as he moved to reassure the international community that he is acting against terrorism ahead of a major conference on Afghanistan this week.
The Afghan government outlawed the use of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, used by the Taliban in 90 per cent of improvised roadside explosives, on the eve of the London conference to set out a political and military plan for the region. President Karzai will join US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gordon Brown for the one-day meeting, chaired by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, on Thursday. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and foreign ministers of Afghanistan's leading regional partners will also attend.
It will follow an emergency conference on Yemen in London on Wednesday, prompted by the heightened threat of terrorism following the attempted airplane attack on Christmas Day, which it is suspected was hatched in the country.
The Afghanistan conference will set out a strategy for the next 12 months, including milestones for President Karzai's government to pass before the eventual handover of military control and political governance to Kabul.
At the London gathering, President Karzai will propose a plan, funded by Western governments, to offer money and jobs to rank-and-file Taliban fighters, who are not members of al-Qa'ida or other terror groups, in an attempt to persuade them to switch sides and bring an end to the fighting. Taliban commanders pay their foot soldiers higher rates than government forces, but wages for Afghan forces would rise from $120 (£75) a month to $165 a month.
Mrs Clinton unveiled a plan last week, to be presented in London, for the stabilisation of Afghanistan, also including bringing low-level fighters back into mainstream society. Taliban leaders have been excluded from the reintegration plans, but yesterday Pakistan's foreign ministry said it was reaching out to "all levels" of the Taliban in an attempt to bring peace to Afghanistan.
The British government wants the conference to approve a timetable for transferring power to Afghan security forces and government.
At the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in November, Mr Brown called on Kabul to identify within three months from the date of the conference additional Afghan troops to be sent to Helmand for training. By six months, there should be a clear plan for police training, including tackling corruption, while within nine months some 400 provincial and district governors should be appointed. Within a year, the Prime Minister said, 50,000 additional Afghan troops must be trained, taking the total number of soldiers to 134,000. At least five out of 34 provinces should be under Afghan control within a year.
US General Stanley McChrystal, commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, wants the London meeting to set a target of 171,000 Afghan soldiers by October 2011, and police numbers to increase from 94,000 to 134,000 by that date.
The scale of the task facing world leaders was underlined on Friday with another death of a British soldier from an explosive device in Helmand. The soldier from A Company 4 Rifles was the 250th to be killed in the country.
Nato troops have seized tons of ammonium nitrate fertiliser over the past five months in southern Afghanistan, but the new ban is designed to send a message that the government is doing everything it can to curb the insurgency. President Karzai banned the use, production, storage, purchase or sale of the fertiliser and farmers have one month to turn in their stocks or face prosecution.
The Afghan president is under intense pressure to act against terrorism and corruption following his disputed second-term election last year. Mr Miliband last week said the Afghan government needed to show it was taking steps. Writing in the New Statesman, the Foreign Secretary said: "To remain resistant to Taliban intimidation, Afghans need to know that their government can provide basic justice and maintain order."
Mrs Clinton said on Thursday: "What [Afghans] want is a government that can and will function, and we are expecting a lot from President Karzai and his new government."
US President Barack Obama has set a timeline of July 2011 for the start of a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, echoed by Mr Brown.
The Independent on Sunday has led calls for a withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan within a year, while leaders in other EU countries are under pressure to demand a speeded-up withdrawal. Germany is among those said to be frustrated at the lengthy commitment.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who will not attend the talks at Lancaster House, central London, but who is instead sending her foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, yesterday stressed her country's commitment to training Afghan troops. She will hold talks in Berlin with President Karzai this week before he travels to London for the conference.
The meeting will also highlight the effort needed by Pakistan to tackle terrorism in its country and border areas with Afghanistan.
Pakistan's foreign ministry said yesterday that the government was reaching out to "all levels" of the Afghan Taliban to end the insurgency against Kabul.
The talks on Yemen on Wednesday will bring together the foreign ministers of the country's main development partners, including the US and Saudi Arabia. Britain arranged the conference to coincide with the Afghanistan meeting after a Yemen-based al-Qa'ida group claimed it was behind the failed bid to blow up the Amsterdam to Detroit plane on 25 December.
The talks will focus on security and development funding to prevent Yemen becoming a failed state and being used by al-Qa'ida to launch further attacks. The Yemen government is also contending with a Shia revolt in the north and separatist movement in the south.
Underscoring the fragility of the its authority over the country, the bodies of 20 of 26 Saudi soldiers reported missing were yesterday found on the border after fighting against Shia rebels.
US General David Petraeus, who discussed military co-operation with Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh earlier this month, pledged a doubling of aid from Washington to the country, taking it to $140m (£87m).
Saudi Arabia is believed to be spending between $200m and $300m a year on helping Yemeni security authorities conduct counter-terrorism work. Britain launched a £7m five-year justice and policing programme in the country in 2008, and earlier this month Mr Brown agreed funding with President Obama for a counter-terrorism police unit.
The US and UK administrations are putting pressure on President Karzai to expedite efforts to ban a key ingredient used in "improvised roadside explosives.
Karzai is also being asked to meet certain deadlines with respect to the number of Afghans sent to the British and US trainers for police and military training. General McCrystal wants training to be completed by October 2011 for a total of 171,000 troops and 134,000 police.
The article also notes that President Obama has set a deadline of July 2011 for the start of a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
In addition, President Karzai will propose a plan, financed by Western governments, to offer money and jobs to rank-and-file Taliban fighters who are not affiliated with terrorist groups. The wages are designed to be higher than the Taliban commanders pay their "foot soldiers."
UK and Britain also expect the Karzai government to extend its control over provincial and district governments and to root out corruption in the government.
Comment: It remains to be seen whether these goals will be met. Past experience justifies some skepticism. It's not clear what types of jobs will be proferred to Taliban soldiers. There is nothing explicit here about rebuilding the economy or economic support for Afghan villages and towns. Obama's goals for the withdrawal of US troops, beginning in July 2011, offer few details about how many troops will be withdrawn or over what period of time. Many such pledges are qualified by "conditions on the ground."Bob
--------------------------------
On the eve of a London conference on his country, Afghanistan's President bans key ingredient used in insurgents' bombs
By Jane Merrick
Sunday, 24 January 2010 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/karzai-takes-on-the-roadside-bombmakers-1877279
President Hamid Karzai has banned a key ingredient in the roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of British, American and Nato soldiers in his country as he moved to reassure the international community that he is acting against terrorism ahead of a major conference on Afghanistan this week.
The Afghan government outlawed the use of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, used by the Taliban in 90 per cent of improvised roadside explosives, on the eve of the London conference to set out a political and military plan for the region. President Karzai will join US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gordon Brown for the one-day meeting, chaired by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, on Thursday. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and foreign ministers of Afghanistan's leading regional partners will also attend.
It will follow an emergency conference on Yemen in London on Wednesday, prompted by the heightened threat of terrorism following the attempted airplane attack on Christmas Day, which it is suspected was hatched in the country.
The Afghanistan conference will set out a strategy for the next 12 months, including milestones for President Karzai's government to pass before the eventual handover of military control and political governance to Kabul.
At the London gathering, President Karzai will propose a plan, funded by Western governments, to offer money and jobs to rank-and-file Taliban fighters, who are not members of al-Qa'ida or other terror groups, in an attempt to persuade them to switch sides and bring an end to the fighting. Taliban commanders pay their foot soldiers higher rates than government forces, but wages for Afghan forces would rise from $120 (£75) a month to $165 a month.
Mrs Clinton unveiled a plan last week, to be presented in London, for the stabilisation of Afghanistan, also including bringing low-level fighters back into mainstream society. Taliban leaders have been excluded from the reintegration plans, but yesterday Pakistan's foreign ministry said it was reaching out to "all levels" of the Taliban in an attempt to bring peace to Afghanistan.
The British government wants the conference to approve a timetable for transferring power to Afghan security forces and government.
At the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in November, Mr Brown called on Kabul to identify within three months from the date of the conference additional Afghan troops to be sent to Helmand for training. By six months, there should be a clear plan for police training, including tackling corruption, while within nine months some 400 provincial and district governors should be appointed. Within a year, the Prime Minister said, 50,000 additional Afghan troops must be trained, taking the total number of soldiers to 134,000. At least five out of 34 provinces should be under Afghan control within a year.
US General Stanley McChrystal, commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, wants the London meeting to set a target of 171,000 Afghan soldiers by October 2011, and police numbers to increase from 94,000 to 134,000 by that date.
The scale of the task facing world leaders was underlined on Friday with another death of a British soldier from an explosive device in Helmand. The soldier from A Company 4 Rifles was the 250th to be killed in the country.
Nato troops have seized tons of ammonium nitrate fertiliser over the past five months in southern Afghanistan, but the new ban is designed to send a message that the government is doing everything it can to curb the insurgency. President Karzai banned the use, production, storage, purchase or sale of the fertiliser and farmers have one month to turn in their stocks or face prosecution.
The Afghan president is under intense pressure to act against terrorism and corruption following his disputed second-term election last year. Mr Miliband last week said the Afghan government needed to show it was taking steps. Writing in the New Statesman, the Foreign Secretary said: "To remain resistant to Taliban intimidation, Afghans need to know that their government can provide basic justice and maintain order."
Mrs Clinton said on Thursday: "What [Afghans] want is a government that can and will function, and we are expecting a lot from President Karzai and his new government."
US President Barack Obama has set a timeline of July 2011 for the start of a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, echoed by Mr Brown.
The Independent on Sunday has led calls for a withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan within a year, while leaders in other EU countries are under pressure to demand a speeded-up withdrawal. Germany is among those said to be frustrated at the lengthy commitment.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who will not attend the talks at Lancaster House, central London, but who is instead sending her foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, yesterday stressed her country's commitment to training Afghan troops. She will hold talks in Berlin with President Karzai this week before he travels to London for the conference.
The meeting will also highlight the effort needed by Pakistan to tackle terrorism in its country and border areas with Afghanistan.
Pakistan's foreign ministry said yesterday that the government was reaching out to "all levels" of the Afghan Taliban to end the insurgency against Kabul.
The talks on Yemen on Wednesday will bring together the foreign ministers of the country's main development partners, including the US and Saudi Arabia. Britain arranged the conference to coincide with the Afghanistan meeting after a Yemen-based al-Qa'ida group claimed it was behind the failed bid to blow up the Amsterdam to Detroit plane on 25 December.
The talks will focus on security and development funding to prevent Yemen becoming a failed state and being used by al-Qa'ida to launch further attacks. The Yemen government is also contending with a Shia revolt in the north and separatist movement in the south.
Underscoring the fragility of the its authority over the country, the bodies of 20 of 26 Saudi soldiers reported missing were yesterday found on the border after fighting against Shia rebels.
US General David Petraeus, who discussed military co-operation with Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh earlier this month, pledged a doubling of aid from Washington to the country, taking it to $140m (£87m).
Saudi Arabia is believed to be spending between $200m and $300m a year on helping Yemeni security authorities conduct counter-terrorism work. Britain launched a £7m five-year justice and policing programme in the country in 2008, and earlier this month Mr Brown agreed funding with President Obama for a counter-terrorism police unit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
