There are mixed results over the last two weeks, including the first days of the new year, regarding the US-dominated/NATO occupation and war in Afghanistan. There is some good news, but, sadly, the bad news remains greatly ascendant.
First the good news. Jason Ditz reports on Antiwar.com (12/30/10) that the newest CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that “63 percent of the American public opposed to the war, the largest opposition yet from the regular poll.” Another question posed by the pollsters finds that “56 percent of Americans believe the war is going either ‘moderately badly’ or ‘very badly.” Ditz notes that this poll was taken after the president’s December 16 speech on Afghanistan, indicating that Obama’s upbeat message did not resonate well with most of the American public.
While such poll findings may be momentarily uplifting for those of us who have opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan from the beginning, going back to 2001 or even before, public opinion does not much affect US Afghan policies. A positive note is that such polls may reflect a growing awareness among an increasing number of Americans that the war is too costly financially and much too injurious (or lethal) for American troops and their families. One implication is that there is a growing sentiment that we need to direct our attention to the serious domestic problems in America of unemployment and underemployment, the continuing housing crisis, a pressing need to channel more support to public education through college, the overall debt-ridden American government, economy, and society, research and technology on green energy, and so forth. On this score, Tom Engelhardt comments in one of the paragraphs from his much longer article on Antiwar.com, “The Urge to Surge,” January 4, 2011:
"The U.S. economy looks increasingly sclerotic; moneys for an aging and rotting infrastructure are long gone; state and city governments are laying off teachers, police, even firefighters; Americans are unemployed in near record numbers; global oil prices (for a country that has in no way begun to wean itself from its dependence on foreign oil) are ominously on the rise; and yet taxpayer money continues to pour into the military and into our foreign wars. It has recently been estimated, for instance, that after spending $11.6 billion in 2011 on the training, supply, and support of the Afghan army and police, the U.S. will continue to spend an average of $6.2 billion a year at least through 2015 (and undoubtedly into an unknown future) – and that’s but one expense in the estimated $120 billion to $160 billion a year being spent at present on the Afghan War, what can only be described as part of America’s war stimulus package abroad." (http://original/antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/04/the-urge-to-surge-4)
However, the increasingly plutocratic nature of the US political system, the power of the military-industrial complex, the foreign policy based on force as always a viable, if not preferred, option, the continuing and increasing dependence on foreign oil - all represent some of the dominant influences with respect to foreign policy generally and to Afghanistan specifically. Public opinion appears little more than a passing annoyance to the decision-makers, especially when there is yet no strong anti-Afghan war movement.
Among the other bad news items, Jason Ditz’s Antiwar.com column on January 6, 2011 offers the following example, reporting that “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has approved yet another escalation of the war in Afghanistan, this time approving another 1,400 Marines who are expected to be sent to Afghanistan within a matter of weeks.”
How many US troops are already in Afghanistan? According to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there were 90,000 US troops in Afghanistan near the end of 2010, along with 39,215 troops with allied countries, ranging from no troops from Jordan and Tonga to 9,500 troops from the UK. http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/Placeats/14DEC%202010%20Placemat.pdf
Other reports have indicated the US troop level closer to 100,000. With the additional 1,400 US troops, the total number now rises to 91,400 or to above 100,000.
The numbers don’t end there. There are an unknown number of CIA operatives and US Special Forces, plus US-connected contractors. Further, according to Wikipedia, there were in 2010 138,200 Afghan National Army troops and 120,500 Afghan National Police officers. There are regular reports that indicate many of the Afghan troops and police officers are not well trained, not reliable, and/or infiltrated by people who are sympathetic to the Taliban.
Despite the growing number of US and other troops and police in Afghanistan, the situation there appears to be getting worse. The Dailykos.com website quotes from Agence France-Presse, December 27, 2010, on two confidential UN maps showing “a clear deterioration in security in parts of Afghanistan.” Quoting Kieran Dwyer, “communications director of the UN mission in Afghanistan, “There are parts of the country that have become increasingly difficult to operate in during 2010 due to insecurity.” The article notes further, “Violence in the north has steadily worsened over the last two years despite the Taliban insurgency having its powerbase in the south.” (http://www.kailykos.com/story/2010/12/28/931769/-Open-thread-for-night-owls:-Insecurity-rises-in-Afghanistan
Juan Cole identifies the “top ten myths about Afghanistan,” including this one on the deteriorating security environment in the country. (“Top Ten Myths About Afghanistan,” Informed Comment, December 27, 2010.) First the myth, then the fact.
Myth: “There has been significant progress in tamping down the insurgency in Afghanistan.”
Fact: A recent National Intelligence Estimate by 16 intelligence agencies found no progress. It warned that large swathes of the country were at risk of falling to the Taliban and that they still had safe havens in Pakistan, with the Pakistani government complicit. The UN says there were over 6000 civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of 2010, a 20% increase over the same period in 2009. Also, 701 US and NATO troops have been killed this year, compared to 521 last year, a 25% increase. There were typically over 1000 insurgent attacks per month in Afghanistan this year, often twice as many per month as in 2009, recalling the guerrilla war in Iraq in 2005.
US Afghanistan policy has a pronounced surreal quality about it. Tom Engelhardt captures some of this when he compares the recent surge in US troops to how Soviet generals were thinking back in the 1980s about the future progress of their occupation. Both the Soviet generals and the US decision-makers are caught up in pipedreams, though with lots of destructive consequences. Engelhardt writes:
“As 2011 begins, what could be eerier than reading secret Soviet documents from the USSR’s Afghan debacle of the 1980s? It gives you chills to run across Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at a Politburo meeting in October 1985, almost six years after Soviet troops first flooded into Afghanistan, reading letters aloud to his colleagues from embittered Soviet citizens (‘The Politburo had made a mistake and must correct it as soon as possible – every day precious lives are lost’); or, in November 1986, insisting to those same colleagues that the Afghan war must be ended in a year, ‘at maximum, two.’ Yet, with the gut-wrenching sureness history offers, you can’t help but know that, even two years later, even with a strong desire to leave (which has yet to surface among the Washington elite a decade into our own Afghan adventure), imperial pride and fear of loss of ‘credibility’ would keep the Soviets fighting on to 1989.” (http://original/antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/04/the-urge-to-surge-4)
Showing posts with label insurgents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurgents. Show all posts
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Monday, September 27, 2010
Juan Cole on electoral and military set backs in Afghanistan
Juan Cole offers today his expert comments on and links to recent events and trends in Afghanistan. You can find this information, as well as other recent and past posts, at his award-winning blog, Informed Comment. One implication of today's post by Cole is that the US-led war in Afghanistan is on a downward spiral with respect to winning the hearts and minds of Afghan citizens or with respect to the creation of a legitimate and un-corrupted Afghan government.
Afghan Villagers Protest US Air Strike, as Ballot Fraud Evidence Surfaces
Posted on September 27, 2010 by Juan Cole
Share
According to the Afghanistan government, about 186 civilians have died in each of the last 6 months in the war. (Other studies suggest the bulk of them are killed in Taliban attacks).
While it is true that some 300 civilians were killed in Iraq in August, or nearly twice the Afghan toll, earlier in 2010 the toll there was on the order of 200 a month. That is, Afghanistan violence is creeping up toward Iraq levels.
Past 6 months in Afghanistan according to Ministry of Interior spokesman, Zemarai Bahsari (Tolo News):
Insurgent attacks:
4012 Civilians killed:
1119 Civilians wounded:
2473 Police killed:
959 Police wounded:
1345 Insurgents killed:
3098 Insurgents arrested:
2800 Insurgents wounded:
632....
Lara Logan’s report on CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday struck me as highly pessimistic and as supporting with its footage the reality of these grim statistics.
One of her stories was about going out to a village with an American officer and his men. They found that the village had turned against them and would not talk to them. Then on the way back they were attacked and seemed barely to get out of it alive. It sounded to me like the surrounding countryside was full of such dangerous villages, and that the previously safe village had turned deadly strikes me as a bad sign. The officeer admits that he controls perhaps 18 sq. kilometers of the 300 sq. km. for which he is responsible; the rest is in Taliban hands and there are many villages to which he cannot go. Logan points out that the datum is astonishing. I would have said depressing.
Andrew Bacevich slams Bob Woodward for indulging in Washington salon gossip in his new book on the Afghanistan war, instead of asking the hard questions of an investigative reporter about what in the world we are doing there.
Der Spiegel is reporting that recently Afghan army and police have been boycotting joint patrols with American and German troops in Qunduz Province. The German article is here.
Meanwhile, Aljazeera English is reporting that video evidence is now emerging of ballot fraud in the recent parliamentary elections. This issue has the potential to render the Afghanistan government invalid altogether, which would be a real blow to it in the midst of a hard fought battle against the Taliban.
A recount has been ordered of ballots at voting stations across 7 provinces.
Afghans were not surprised. Before the election, only 36% though that the election would be free, fair and transparent. Some 65 percent of Afghans think Karzai is doing a bad job, and 95 percent of people in Kabul (where he actually rules) think that. Only half say that NATO & US troops make them safer.
According to this Dari Persian newspaper, hundreds of people demonstrated on Saturday in Mehtarlam, Laghman province, over a US-led raid on Masmood village in Alishang district, Laghman Province, that allegedly killed innocent, civilian villagers. The demonstrators chanted anti-American slogans.
NATO initially announced that it had killed 30 insurgents and that no civilians had been in the area.
The governor of Laghman Province, Muhammad Iqbal Azizi, initially denied the villagers’ claims. But on Sunday he met with the villagers and became convinced that 13-14 civilians had in fact been killed in the operation, which had involved 250 NATO, US and Afghanistan army and police personnel.
A provincial council member blamed an overzealous American pilot for the error.
Afghans all across the country are suspicious of the US military presence and have been demonstrating against it in recent weeks. The threat of some Christian crazies in the US to burn the Quran explains some of the failure to win hearts and minds.
Afghan Villagers Protest US Air Strike, as Ballot Fraud Evidence Surfaces
Posted on September 27, 2010 by Juan Cole
Share
According to the Afghanistan government, about 186 civilians have died in each of the last 6 months in the war. (Other studies suggest the bulk of them are killed in Taliban attacks).
While it is true that some 300 civilians were killed in Iraq in August, or nearly twice the Afghan toll, earlier in 2010 the toll there was on the order of 200 a month. That is, Afghanistan violence is creeping up toward Iraq levels.
Past 6 months in Afghanistan according to Ministry of Interior spokesman, Zemarai Bahsari (Tolo News):
Insurgent attacks:
4012 Civilians killed:
1119 Civilians wounded:
2473 Police killed:
959 Police wounded:
1345 Insurgents killed:
3098 Insurgents arrested:
2800 Insurgents wounded:
632....
Lara Logan’s report on CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday struck me as highly pessimistic and as supporting with its footage the reality of these grim statistics.
One of her stories was about going out to a village with an American officer and his men. They found that the village had turned against them and would not talk to them. Then on the way back they were attacked and seemed barely to get out of it alive. It sounded to me like the surrounding countryside was full of such dangerous villages, and that the previously safe village had turned deadly strikes me as a bad sign. The officeer admits that he controls perhaps 18 sq. kilometers of the 300 sq. km. for which he is responsible; the rest is in Taliban hands and there are many villages to which he cannot go. Logan points out that the datum is astonishing. I would have said depressing.
Andrew Bacevich slams Bob Woodward for indulging in Washington salon gossip in his new book on the Afghanistan war, instead of asking the hard questions of an investigative reporter about what in the world we are doing there.
Der Spiegel is reporting that recently Afghan army and police have been boycotting joint patrols with American and German troops in Qunduz Province. The German article is here.
Meanwhile, Aljazeera English is reporting that video evidence is now emerging of ballot fraud in the recent parliamentary elections. This issue has the potential to render the Afghanistan government invalid altogether, which would be a real blow to it in the midst of a hard fought battle against the Taliban.
A recount has been ordered of ballots at voting stations across 7 provinces.
Afghans were not surprised. Before the election, only 36% though that the election would be free, fair and transparent. Some 65 percent of Afghans think Karzai is doing a bad job, and 95 percent of people in Kabul (where he actually rules) think that. Only half say that NATO & US troops make them safer.
According to this Dari Persian newspaper, hundreds of people demonstrated on Saturday in Mehtarlam, Laghman province, over a US-led raid on Masmood village in Alishang district, Laghman Province, that allegedly killed innocent, civilian villagers. The demonstrators chanted anti-American slogans.
NATO initially announced that it had killed 30 insurgents and that no civilians had been in the area.
The governor of Laghman Province, Muhammad Iqbal Azizi, initially denied the villagers’ claims. But on Sunday he met with the villagers and became convinced that 13-14 civilians had in fact been killed in the operation, which had involved 250 NATO, US and Afghanistan army and police personnel.
A provincial council member blamed an overzealous American pilot for the error.
Afghans all across the country are suspicious of the US military presence and have been demonstrating against it in recent weeks. The threat of some Christian crazies in the US to burn the Quran explains some of the failure to win hearts and minds.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Drone attacks kill civilians in Waziristan
Juan Cole makes it clear today in the following report from his blog, Informed Comment, that there is not just one monolithic insurgent group of Taliban. Rather, there are five or so such groups. He refers to "fighters of the Haqqani network" as one non-Taliban group. Ironically, Cole writes, the Haqqani network was one of the group's identified by Ronald Reagan as "Freedom Fighters" during the 1980s. Now they are the target of US drone attacks, and in the process unmanned drone weapons are killing more civilians than insurgents. Drone warfare and counterinsurgency, Gen. Patraeus' strategy in Afghanistan, appear in essential ways to be contradictory and hardly to advance the goal of "winning hearts and minds."
Juan Cole, "US Drone Strikes kill 15 [60] in N. Waziristan"
http://www.juancole.com/, Sept. 15, 2010
The Associated Press does an important story about an intensive drone strike campaign by the US military since September 2 in southern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s North Waziristan that has left 60 persons dead, among them innocent civilians.
On Tuesday alone, US drone attacks targeted suspected militants killed some 15 persons in the village of Dargah Mandi village on the outskirts of Miranshah, N. Waziristan’s main city.
The drone strikes have targeted fighters of the Haqqani network, one of five or so major insurgent groups fighting against the US & NATO presence in Afghanistan and against the Karzai government. Jalaluddin Haqqani is one of Ronald Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters,” who battled the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan in the 1980s with American aid. He could not accept the US invasion and occupation of his country, either, and organized an insurgency now mainly led by his son Siraj. The Haqqani group is not Taliban but rather Mujahidin and has only a vague tactical alliance with Mulla Omar’s Taliban and similar groups.
Pakistani opposition to the US incursions against Pakistani sovereignty has been muted because of the vast flooding that has affected much of the country, and dealing with which has pinned down the Pakistani military. Another 25 villages in the Sindh province were submerged by flood waters on Tuesday. Hundreds of more villages are menaced by the waters of Manchhal Lake, which is now full to capacity and could overflow. Incredibly, the flooding continues to displace Sindhi villagers on a massive scale without generating much in the way of news in the US. The displaced are facing lack of potable water and food shortages.
Juan Cole, "US Drone Strikes kill 15 [60] in N. Waziristan"
http://www.juancole.com/, Sept. 15, 2010
The Associated Press does an important story about an intensive drone strike campaign by the US military since September 2 in southern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s North Waziristan that has left 60 persons dead, among them innocent civilians.
On Tuesday alone, US drone attacks targeted suspected militants killed some 15 persons in the village of Dargah Mandi village on the outskirts of Miranshah, N. Waziristan’s main city.
The drone strikes have targeted fighters of the Haqqani network, one of five or so major insurgent groups fighting against the US & NATO presence in Afghanistan and against the Karzai government. Jalaluddin Haqqani is one of Ronald Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters,” who battled the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan in the 1980s with American aid. He could not accept the US invasion and occupation of his country, either, and organized an insurgency now mainly led by his son Siraj. The Haqqani group is not Taliban but rather Mujahidin and has only a vague tactical alliance with Mulla Omar’s Taliban and similar groups.
Pakistani opposition to the US incursions against Pakistani sovereignty has been muted because of the vast flooding that has affected much of the country, and dealing with which has pinned down the Pakistani military. Another 25 villages in the Sindh province were submerged by flood waters on Tuesday. Hundreds of more villages are menaced by the waters of Manchhal Lake, which is now full to capacity and could overflow. Incredibly, the flooding continues to displace Sindhi villagers on a massive scale without generating much in the way of news in the US. The displaced are facing lack of potable water and food shortages.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Civilian casualties in Afghanistan spurred by US and NATO attacks
Without Juan Cole's blog, the Middle East would be more in an intellectual fog than it is. In the following post from today's Informed Comment, Cole refers to two recent studies indicating that after civilian deaths from attacks by US/NATO, Afghan insurgents or others retaliate - and the war escalates and drags on.
Civilian Casualties are Causing the War in the First Place: Rethinking Afghanistan, Pt. 4
Posted on July 24, 2010 by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, July 24- 2010
[....]
A new study by America’s National Bureau for Economic Research looking at the circumstances around 4,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan found a high correlation between NATO killing of even two civilians in an area and a spike of attacks on NATO and US troops. It turns out that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s much-maligned stricter rules of engagement, especially limitations on blunt air strikes, actually likely reduced the number of attacks. Gen. David Petraeus is said to be considering altering the ROE.
There is only one way to interpret the NBER report, which is that President Obama was wrong to escalate the Afghanistan war, since US and NATO war-fighting, which inevitably causes civilian deaths, is actually ratcheting up the war. A heavy footprint and more NATO operations likely will create the monster Washington fears, a growing insurgency, rather than ‘blunting the momentum’ of the ‘Taliban’ as Obama and Petreaus hope.
The Afghan Human Rights Monitor recently issued a report on civilian casualties in the first half of 2010. AFP summarized key findings:
‘ About 1,074 civilians were killed and more than 1,500 injured in war-related incidents in the first six months of 2010, compared with 1,059 killed in the same period last year, ARM said. “Up to 1,200 security incidents were recorded in June, the highest number of incidents compared to any month since 2002,” it said. . . In a breakdown of parties to blame for civilian deaths, ARM says 61 percent were caused by insurgents, 30 percent by US, NATO and Afghan forces, six percent by “criminals and private security firms”, with three percent unknown.
The full report in pdf format is here
See also their report, “Children Suffered the Brunt of War Casualties in 2009″
Aljazeera English has a recent report on rising children and adult Afghan casualties:
and here is Rethinking Afghanistan pt. 4: http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/civilian-casualties-rethinking-afghanistan-pt-4.html;
Civilian Casualties are Causing the War in the First Place: Rethinking Afghanistan, Pt. 4
Posted on July 24, 2010 by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, July 24- 2010
[....]
A new study by America’s National Bureau for Economic Research looking at the circumstances around 4,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan found a high correlation between NATO killing of even two civilians in an area and a spike of attacks on NATO and US troops. It turns out that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s much-maligned stricter rules of engagement, especially limitations on blunt air strikes, actually likely reduced the number of attacks. Gen. David Petraeus is said to be considering altering the ROE.
There is only one way to interpret the NBER report, which is that President Obama was wrong to escalate the Afghanistan war, since US and NATO war-fighting, which inevitably causes civilian deaths, is actually ratcheting up the war. A heavy footprint and more NATO operations likely will create the monster Washington fears, a growing insurgency, rather than ‘blunting the momentum’ of the ‘Taliban’ as Obama and Petreaus hope.
The Afghan Human Rights Monitor recently issued a report on civilian casualties in the first half of 2010. AFP summarized key findings:
‘ About 1,074 civilians were killed and more than 1,500 injured in war-related incidents in the first six months of 2010, compared with 1,059 killed in the same period last year, ARM said. “Up to 1,200 security incidents were recorded in June, the highest number of incidents compared to any month since 2002,” it said. . . In a breakdown of parties to blame for civilian deaths, ARM says 61 percent were caused by insurgents, 30 percent by US, NATO and Afghan forces, six percent by “criminals and private security firms”, with three percent unknown.
The full report in pdf format is here
See also their report, “Children Suffered the Brunt of War Casualties in 2009″
Aljazeera English has a recent report on rising children and adult Afghan casualties:
and here is Rethinking Afghanistan pt. 4: http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/civilian-casualties-rethinking-afghanistan-pt-4.html;
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
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Democracy Now interview on extortion by warlords and insurgents in Afghanistan taken up by Congressional Committee
Congressional Probe Confirms US Indirectly Funding Afghan Insurgents with Protection Payoffs
A congressional investigation has affirmed the findings of a Nation magazine report that revealed the US government is indirectly financing warlords and insurgent forces they’re fighting in Afghanistan. Investigative journalist Aram Roston reported the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan have paid insurgent groups to protect US supply routes from attack. Roston discussed his findings on Democracy Now! in November.
Aram Roston: "The security companies reach arrangements with the local Taliban, the local warlords and various insiders to pay them off for protection. It’s very much like an extortion racket and very much like a protection racket, and it amounts to huge amounts of money. Some say ten percent, some say far more than ten percent, of the convoys. Some say that most of the security budgets are going towards these payments to the Taliban and to the tribal leaders and the warlords."
Roston’s story prompted the congressional probe. The military has now opened a criminal investigation into the payoffs.
A congressional investigation has affirmed the findings of a Nation magazine report that revealed the US government is indirectly financing warlords and insurgent forces they’re fighting in Afghanistan. Investigative journalist Aram Roston reported the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan have paid insurgent groups to protect US supply routes from attack. Roston discussed his findings on Democracy Now! in November.
Aram Roston: "The security companies reach arrangements with the local Taliban, the local warlords and various insiders to pay them off for protection. It’s very much like an extortion racket and very much like a protection racket, and it amounts to huge amounts of money. Some say ten percent, some say far more than ten percent, of the convoys. Some say that most of the security budgets are going towards these payments to the Taliban and to the tribal leaders and the warlords."
Roston’s story prompted the congressional probe. The military has now opened a criminal investigation into the payoffs.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Still no security for many Afghan citizens
Here are excerpts from two articles printed today, May 28, 2010, in Outlook Afghanistan. Both articles offer evidence of continued insecurity and casualties among Afghan civilians in areas where US-led assaults have occurred or continue.
#1 - The full Internet address for the first article is: http://outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pages/main_news.html#01
"Hundreds of families, fearing the resumption of clashes between the Taliban and security forces [US-led military forces] have fled troubled districts of Marja and Nad-Alit in southern Helmand province. The fresh exodus of 400 families from the towns comes nearly three months after a massive counter-insurgency operation, involving thousands of Afghan and foreign [US-led] troops."
[....]
The article includes a quote of a resident, Haji Aminullah, who says: "We have trenches around us, set up by the rebels [groups of "Taliban"] and foreign troops. As a result, we are confined to our homes...."
[....]
Another resident Sahib Khan says "innocent people were being killed in clashes on a daily basis."
[....]
"a large number of families have fled their houses, migrating to Lashkargah...."
"An official responsible for refugee affairs in the province, Haji Ghulam Farooq Noorzai, said 10 families arrived daily in Lashargah. Linking the displacement to frequent clashes, bomb blasts, search operations, and threats from the Taliban, he said they have so far registered 379 families."
#2 - "Civilian Casualties Causing Deep Unrest." http://outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pages/opinion.html#03
"...The number of suicide bombings, political assassinations, and armed clashes has risen in the northern provinces of Afghanistan, which indicates a gradual deterioration of the situation in this relatively peaceful part of the country...According to news reports Coalition Forces have killed around 76 civilians, mostly children...during an air operation."
#1 - The full Internet address for the first article is: http://outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pages/main_news.html#01
"Hundreds of families, fearing the resumption of clashes between the Taliban and security forces [US-led military forces] have fled troubled districts of Marja and Nad-Alit in southern Helmand province. The fresh exodus of 400 families from the towns comes nearly three months after a massive counter-insurgency operation, involving thousands of Afghan and foreign [US-led] troops."
[....]
The article includes a quote of a resident, Haji Aminullah, who says: "We have trenches around us, set up by the rebels [groups of "Taliban"] and foreign troops. As a result, we are confined to our homes...."
[....]
Another resident Sahib Khan says "innocent people were being killed in clashes on a daily basis."
[....]
"a large number of families have fled their houses, migrating to Lashkargah...."
"An official responsible for refugee affairs in the province, Haji Ghulam Farooq Noorzai, said 10 families arrived daily in Lashargah. Linking the displacement to frequent clashes, bomb blasts, search operations, and threats from the Taliban, he said they have so far registered 379 families."
#2 - "Civilian Casualties Causing Deep Unrest." http://outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pages/opinion.html#03
"...The number of suicide bombings, political assassinations, and armed clashes has risen in the northern provinces of Afghanistan, which indicates a gradual deterioration of the situation in this relatively peaceful part of the country...According to news reports Coalition Forces have killed around 76 civilians, mostly children...during an air operation."
Friday, April 30, 2010
Findings of Pentagon study not promising for US occupation in Afghanistan
Juan Cole summarizes the highlight of a new Pentagon study of Afghanistan districts, which was first reported by The New York Times. The study covers the last six months. Cole refers to five of the study's findings. His assessment is that the findings do not augur well for the US-led occupation of Afghanistan. There is little support for President Karzai's government. And there is an increase in the number of districts where there is sympathy toward the insurgencies and an increase in the number of districts where violence has increased.
I expect that the Pentagon will be asking for another increase in US troops to Afghanistan. Instead, they should be contemplating a change in their course, including an increase in support for reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
------------------------
Juan Cole, Informed Comment, April 30, 2010
http://www.juancole.com
Meanwhile, some statistics on Afghanistan from a new Pentagon study of the past 6 months, as reported by the NYT:
NATO is operating in about 100 districts of the country (the vague equivalent of counties).
Number of Afghans in 92 districts (assessed for their relationship to the Federal government) that actively support the government of Hamid Karzai: 0
Number of districts out of 92 that are neutral toward the government: 44
Number of districts sympathetic to the insurgency in March 2010: 48
Number of districts that had been sympathetic to the insurgency in June, 2009: 33
Increase in violent incidents from Feb. 2009 to March 2010: 87 percent.
None of these statistics look particularly good to me.
I expect that the Pentagon will be asking for another increase in US troops to Afghanistan. Instead, they should be contemplating a change in their course, including an increase in support for reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
------------------------
Juan Cole, Informed Comment, April 30, 2010
http://www.juancole.com
Meanwhile, some statistics on Afghanistan from a new Pentagon study of the past 6 months, as reported by the NYT:
NATO is operating in about 100 districts of the country (the vague equivalent of counties).
Number of Afghans in 92 districts (assessed for their relationship to the Federal government) that actively support the government of Hamid Karzai: 0
Number of districts out of 92 that are neutral toward the government: 44
Number of districts sympathetic to the insurgency in March 2010: 48
Number of districts that had been sympathetic to the insurgency in June, 2009: 33
Increase in violent incidents from Feb. 2009 to March 2010: 87 percent.
None of these statistics look particularly good to me.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Marja residents say security has not improved
Juan Cole points out on his Informed Comment blog today that the US-led assault on Marja has not brought local residents the security they were promised.
Cole:
The violence is placing in doubt supposed US achievements on the security front. Pajwhok News Agency reports that, ironically, the residents of Marjah are complaining about poor security in the aftermath of the US move into that area. They say that there is poor security, that civilians are caught in the cross-fire between US/ Afghanistan National Army troops and the Taliban, and that it is dangerous to work their fields (Marjah is a set of agricultural villages and scattered farm houses). They say that the Afghanistan police have not provided even the level of security that the Taliban once had.
Here are excerpts from the report by the Pajwhok News Agency, to which Cole alludes. You can find the full report at http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pages/Main%20news3.html#70
Report: Marjah Residents Complain of Poor Security
LASHKARGAH - Residents of the Marjah district in southern Helmand province say a recent military operation has failed to bring any improvement to their lives. Instead the offensive has added to their problems.
Cole:
The violence is placing in doubt supposed US achievements on the security front. Pajwhok News Agency reports that, ironically, the residents of Marjah are complaining about poor security in the aftermath of the US move into that area. They say that there is poor security, that civilians are caught in the cross-fire between US/ Afghanistan National Army troops and the Taliban, and that it is dangerous to work their fields (Marjah is a set of agricultural villages and scattered farm houses). They say that the Afghanistan police have not provided even the level of security that the Taliban once had.
Here are excerpts from the report by the Pajwhok News Agency, to which Cole alludes. You can find the full report at http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pages/Main%20news3.html#70
Report: Marjah Residents Complain of Poor Security
LASHKARGAH - Residents of the Marjah district in southern Helmand province say a recent military operation has failed to bring any improvement to their lives. Instead the offensive has added to their problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
