The anti-war zombies paraded themselves Monday in front of the White House. If these so-called “peace” activists want to “stop war against the people of Afghanistan”, then why do they so strongly advocate troop withdrawal? How does that help bring peace and end war in Afghanistan?

Medea Benjamin:

This is marking yet another anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan; and we’re here to say that we voted for this president because we want an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re actually talking about sending in another 40,000 troops and we’re saying that’s insane. So we’re here to say healthcare not warfare. We need this money at home for education, healthcare, infrastructure, fixing our country; and, we should put money into Afghanistan for the needs of the people and not more warfare.

Yes, because all we and our NATO allies are engaged in over there, is “going into the homes of Afghans in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”. For example:

Belgian army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) distribute greeting cards for the Eid-al-Fitr festival as they patrol during a joint mission with German Bundeswehr army soldiers in Taloqan, west of Kunduz, September 30, 2008.
REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

U.S. Navy Seabees and Army soldiers work on a construction project in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Sept. 25, 2009. The Seabees are assigned to the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 22, and the soldiers are assigned to 4th Engineer Battalion.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Kenneth W. Robinson

A grateful refugee camp resident in Kabul, Afghanistan, kisses U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. (Dr.) Yevsey Goldberg, who helped bring more than 550-kilograms of rice and other supplies, Dec. 6, 2008. Goldberg is deployed to International Security Assistance Force Headquarters.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Aramis Ramirez

U.S. Navy Lt. Obi Ugochukwu checks sick baby Fatima, 8 months, on March 23, 2009 outside the U.S. Marine base in Bakwa in southwest Afghanistan. The child’s parents brought her to the base for emergency treatment for a 104 degree fever and seizures. Ugochukwu, the base medical officer, gave the child medicine to reduce the fever and asked the parents to bring her again the following day. Such remote areas as Bakwa, in Afghanistan’s Farah province, have no hospitals, and the medical personnel at the Marine base provide the only emergency care in the region. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

A Canadian soldier shakes hands with an Afghan boy during a joint patrol with Afghan National Army troops near Panjwaii village, Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan, July 13, 2007.
REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly

A U.S. soldier passes out candy to children in Pir Zadeh, a village in Afghanistan. Military commanders and architects of the Human Terrain project say that it helps make soldiers more knowledgeable about the society surrounding them, thus minimizing casualties and civilian deaths.
Vanessa M. Gezari

[This post to be updated with more photos of U.S. and NATO troops "terrorizing" the Afghan people]

The Afghan people are not the Taliban. After their war with the Soviets, we made the mistake of leaving a power vacuum in the country. The Taliban brought stability to the region; but along with that, they brought their madrasas and a strict adherence and indoctrination into Islamic fundamentalism; and with that came cruelty and oppression.

War-weary Afghans welcomed the stability, but not the governance under Sharia. By October 7, 2001, the people of Afghanistan welcomed liberation.

There are many complex issues in dealing with Afghanistan; there are no painless downhill solutions, but only steep mountains to climb.

But in regards to Code Pink and the anti-war movement, where does their compassion lay? Do they really care about the lives of innocent Afghans? Then why would they advocate a course of action that would subjugate the people of Afghanistan to once again live under the brutality of Taliban rule?

Certainly, not all Afghans have appreciated our presence there; and hold us accountable for some of the violence. But others recognize that we are the ones trying to protect them and to help them rebuild a stable government.

The failures of the Karzai government and the allegations of election fraud- both real and perceived- have been a huge setback, doing more damage than any Taliban attack.

The perception of wavering commitment back in Washington does nothing to further confidence among the Afghan people that the U.S. and NATO are the answer to their prayers of a better life and brighter future:

Governor Massoud said he personally admired the Marines here, from the Second Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people “just don’t want them here.”

He estimated that two of every three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which the Taliban control. Others support them for religious reasons or because they object to foreign forces.

Not least, people understand that the Taliban have not disappeared, but simply fallen back to Garmsir, 40 miles north, and will almost surely try to return.

Lt. Col. Tim Grattan, the battalion commander, said the local residents’ ambivalence reflected fears of what could happen to anyone who sided with the Marines, an apprehension stoked by past operations that sent troops in only for short periods.

“They are on the fence,” Colonel Grattan said. “They want to go with a winner. They want to see if we stay around and will be able to protect them from the Taliban and any repercussions.”

From Oliver North’s American Heroes, pg 263-4:

10 December 2007- MADERIYA, Iraq, We walked through this agricultural community east of Baghdad, not far from the Iranian border, with COL. Terry Ferrell, commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID. He introduced me to CPT Fawaz Nazzir, of the Iraqi Army. I asked why he joined the new Iraqi Army eleven months ago. His reply was a testament to American resolve in prosecuting this campaign: “I waited,” replied CPT Nazzir, “to see which side was going to win.”

To some Americans that may sound like a cynical response but not to those who have spent years campaigning in Mesopotamia. “What would you expect given how uncertain our commitment was at home?” commented one U.S. officer on his third tour of duty here. He continued: “Until ‘the surge’, nobody in Iraq knew whether we were going to finish this fight. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] and the Shiite militias were all telling their followers that we were going to cut and run. ‘The surge’ proved that we weren’t going to abandon them.”

Not only did we not abandon them, we upped the ante, increasing the number of U.S. combat units in the country and significantly expanding training and support for Iraq’s fledgling security forces.

As with the Iraqis, Afghans want to know that they are siding with the winners; because they know, should they side with the U.S., and we pull out and abandon them, they will suffer barbaric retribution at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

We have a home to retreat back to. For them, Afghanistan is their home. And should the Taliban return, they will have nowhere to run.

American allies throughout the world will also have doubts as to whether or not America is a reliable partner when the going gets tough:

In an interview at the Journal’s offices this week in New York, Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi minced no words about the impact of a U.S. withdrawal before the Taliban is defeated. “This will be disastrous,” he said. “You will lose credibility. . . . Who is going to trust you again?” As for Washington’s latest public bout of ambivalence about the war, he added that “the fact that this is being debated—whether to stay or not stay—what sort of signal is that sending?”

Mr. Qureshi also sounded incredulous that the U.S. might walk away from a struggle in which it has already invested so much: “If you go in, why are you going out without getting the job done? Why did you send so many billion of dollars and lose so many lives? And why did we ally with you?” All fair questions, and all so far unanswered by the Obama Administration.

As for the consequences to Pakistan of an American withdrawal, the foreign minister noted that “we will be the immediate effectees of your policy.” Among the effects he predicts are “more misery,” “more suicide bombings,” and a dramatic loss of confidence in the economy, presumably as investors fear that an emboldened Taliban, no longer pressed by coalition forces in Afghanistan, would soon turn its sights again on Islamabad.

Mr. Qureshi’s arguments carry all the more weight now that Pakistan’s army is waging an often bloody struggle to clear areas previously held by the Taliban and their allies. Pakistan has also furnished much of the crucial intelligence needed to kill top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in U.S. drone strikes. But that kind of cooperation will be harder to come by if the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Islamabad feels obliged to protect itself in the near term by striking deals with various jihadist groups, as it has in the past.

Pakistanis have long viewed the U.S. through the lens of a relationship that has oscillated between periods of close cooperation—as during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s—and periods of tension and even sanctions—as after Pakistan’s test of a nuclear device in 1998. Pakistan’s democratic government has taken major risks to increase its assistance to the U.S. against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Mr. Qureshi is warning, in so many words, that a U.S. retreat from Afghanistan would make it far more difficult for Pakistan to help against al Qaeda.

Media reports, such as the recent news coverage of “Wanat II” that left 8 U.S. soldiers dead, can affect public opinion and Taliban morale, creating an Afghan Tet. Much of the war is about the propaganda of perspective and perception:

A battle that killed eight Americans at a pair of remote military bases in Afghanistan last weekend also left more than 100 insurgents dead, NATO said in a statement released on Tuesday.

Are we winning or losing?

Sending reinforcements will send a clear message to the Taliban and the world that the reputation of Afghanistan as being the “graveyard of empires” is nothing more than a myth; and that the U.S. did what Alexander the Great, the British, and the Soviets could not do.

No, it won’t be easy. The problems faced are complex, and may take generations to solve. But the process needs to start here. 8 years is a drop in the bucket in the context of history. It is nothing.

And in the process of showing resolve and intestinal fortitude to outlast the will of the enemy, we will have helped accomplish what Code Pink and the anti-war movement have never done: bring about peace and a push toward the promotion of human rights.

A U.S. Marine from Charlie 1/1 of the 15th MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) carries empty sand bags to a mortar position in southern Afghanistan, December 1, 2001.
REUTERS/File

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal
By Vanessa Gera
Associated PressSep 18,2009

WARSAW, Poland – Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.

“Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama’s new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous “gray zone” between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

~~~

The Bush administration’s plan would have been “a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world,” Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in the daily Fakt and also carried on his presidential Web site.

~~~

An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: “an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid.”

The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.

~~~

“No Radar. Russia won,” the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.

Bipartisan opposition in U.S. Senate

Remember how then candidate Obama said we need not fear his foreign policy views because he had people like Indiana Senator Dick Lugar by his side? Here’s what Sen. Lugar had to say about this decision:

Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the calls to Polish and Czech leaders came “in the middle of the night” and could endanger foreign countries’ support for the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.“To do this kind of action without any more notification than that is certainly not a confidence-builder,” Lugar said.

Heck, Obama couldn’t even get Missouri’s Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), to go along: “I’m concerned about scrapping it…I think missile defense is a very, very important part of our arsenal.”

Colunmist Ralph Peters sums up the issue:

Obama feeds allies to the Bear
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
September 18, 2009

STILL determined to “push the reset button with Russia,” President Obama hit the delete key on our allies in Eastern Europe.

Obama’s decision to abandon missile defense as we know it, cutting the throats of Poland and the Czech Republic, handed Moscow’s hard-liners their biggest win since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian strongman Vladimir Putin insisted all along that we’d never be permitted to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in the former Soviet empire. He was right.

And Obama got nothing in return. No Russian commitments on Iran’s nuclear program. No sovereignty guarantees for Georgia. No restrictions on arms sales to Venezuela. Not even a bearhug.
…
The move to kill this program was a White House attempt to toss a bone to the extreme left, which has always hated missile defense. (Why defend ourselves, when we’re the enemy?) For that, Obama betrayed the trust of allies who’d done all they could to please us.

The Poles spent enormous political capital to convince their citizens to risk this deployment. They’ve backed us consistently in NATO and the UN. They sent combat troops to support us in Iraq.

The Czechs also fought our political battles for us, supporting our foreign wars and siding with us in international forums — angering West European powers.

Now add Poland and the Czech Republic to the list of allies, such as Israel and Honduras, that we’ve thrown to the wolves. Obama’s foreign policy embodies a line from “Animal House”: “You [screwed] up — you trusted us!”

But the worst thing is how this decision’s read in Moscow. Putin, Russia’s new czar, sees this as a triumph of his will over Obama’s weak, retreating US. And he’s right.

Thus it came to pass that, 70 years to the day after the Red Army invaded Poland, Warsaw’s residents heard the news of this US betrayal and the implicit message that, yes, Eastern Europe still belongs in Moscow’s sphere of influence.

If you’re a citizen of Ukraine, Georgia or even the NATO-member Baltic states, you must be shuddering. You thought NATO and the US were serious about your right to live in freedom?

Better dig that Latvian-Russian dictionary out of the attic.

The last thing we needed to do was to further encourage Putin to believe he’s all-knowing and invincible. But that’s just what we’ve done.
…
Moscow believes we just signed over a new lease on Eastern Europe. And we didn’t even get a tin of caviar. Will the Obama-Putin Act go down in history as the post-modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

It’s pretty clear that Obama cares more about appeasing the left and the Russians (which are pretty much the same thing) than he does about building friendship and trust with our allies. And as for his campaign statement about following Dick Lugar’s lead on foreign policy, like so much in Obama’s world, those were just words. They meant nothing!

In a daring and successful raid, British NATO commandos rescued the journalist. The price for Farrell’s freedom was heavy… PM Gordon Brown heaped solemn praise on one, as of yet unnamed British soldier who gave his life in the rescue, and Munadi died in bullets crossfire, just feet from cover and freedom.

According to Farrell’s account in the Times, the captors moved the two men several times and eventually put them in a tiny room. On the third day, some new fighters, apparently more senior Taliban figures from elsewhere in Afghanistan, arrived and discussed moving their hostages out of the Kunduz area.

Afghan officials believed the two Times journalists were originally held by a Mullah Qadir, but were handed off to a commander Mullah Salaam and held in the village of Ghor Tepa, said Lt. Gen. Mirza Mohammad Yarmand, an Afghan army investigator sent to Kunduz by President Hamid Karzai to look into the case.

The Times reported that the militants taunted Munadi, reminding him of the case in 2007 when kidnappers released Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo but beheaded his translator and another Afghan colleague.

Farrell, an experienced reporter who was once held captive in Iraq, thought the atmosphere turned menacing.

Before dawn on Wednesday, they could hear helicopters approaching.

“We were all in a room, the Talibs all ran, it was obviously a raid,” the Times quoted Farrell as saying.

The militants scattered, though one returned and tipped his gun toward them and then left again without firing. After a while, Farrell and Munadi went out into a courtyard. With Munadi in front, they ran in the dark along the compound’s high mud-brick wall. They heard British and Afghan voices — and a flurry of bullets.

After moving along the wall for about 60 feet, Munadi raised his hands, walked into the open and shouted, “Journalist! Journalist!”

“He was three seconds away from safety,” Farrell was quoted as saying. “I thought we were safe. He just walked into a hail of bullets.”

Farrell, a dual Irish-British citizen, said he then dived into a ditch. For the next couple of minutes, he focused on the British voices. Then he shouted: “British hostage! British hostage!”

The British voices told him to come near, and that’s when he said he saw Munadi.

“He was lying in the same position as he fell,” Farrell told the Times. “That’s all I know. I saw him go down in front of me. He did not move. He’s dead. He was so close; he was just two feet in front of me when he dropped.”

Also killed were “…a Taliban commander, the owner of the house in which the captives were held, and an unidentified woman.”

But politics still throws up speedbumps at every obstacle. Despite intel prior to the raid indicating the Taliban may be planning to relocate the hostages yet again, hostage negotiators are pitching a fit angry at the raid’s outcome. The way negotiators saw it, there was no “urgency”.

Hostage negotiators expressed shock and anger at Gordon Brown’s decision to approve a commando raid to free a kidnapped British journalist, saying that they were within days of securing his release through peaceful means.

~~~

Defence sources said that intensive efforts had been made over the weekend to pinpoint the hostages and assess the strength of the Taleban presence. They said there were no guarantees that a negotiated deal would have led to Mr Farrell’s release and that there were fears he could be moved. However, several sources in Kabul said that the captors were, at worst, seeking a ransom. A Western source involved in the talks said: “There was no immediate urgency that they were going to be beheaded or handed over to another group. You cannot move them easily. It’s a very isolated area.”

Another Western official said: “It was totally heavy-handed. If they’d showed a bit of patience and respect they could have got both of them out without firing a bullet. Instead, they ended up having one of their own killed, the Afghan killed and civilians killed. There’s a lot of p****d-off people at the moment.”

Right… because negotiations have worked out so well in past instances… Daniel Pearl, most notably, coming to mind. I have to wonder if Farrell, himself, would have preferred waiting to see if chit chats over tea paid off.

In fact, I ran across an interesting comment from Scottish blogger, Fitaloon noting how most UK media are finding creative ways to assign blame. And, in fact, Fitaloon ponders the sanity of risking soldiers lives to rescue journalists with a penchant for taking life-threatening risks for stories, wandering into battle zones without military escorts.

Certainly, while I feel Farrell was reckless for endangering not only his life, but his entourage and resulting troops effecting his rescue, it’s unfathomable that military would not act to save their lives. Just as most emergency response personnel do not profile victims as “worthy” of saving, our military saves the stupid with the same courage as they do the innocent.

So here, I will cast aside the negotiators anger as absurd and unneccessary, and instead give kudos to Britain’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, for approving the raid. Additionally, in a rare moment of demonstrating some leadership, PM Gordon Brown reiterated that the UK does not negotiate with terrorists.

“Hostage-taking is never justified, and the UK does not make substantive concessions, including paying ransoms.”

What appears obvious is that NATO commanders also approved this rescue, making me wonder if the PM’s stamp of approval was nothing more than semantics. Also in the back of my head is wondering what a CIC Obama… well known for his penchant for “talk” with jihad radicals and ruling despots… would have done under the same circumstance. Since I’m not convinced he would have shown the same stalwart leadership as the PM, I’m hoping we’ll never have to know.

My hat’s off to the British commandos. It was a mission of which they should be proud. And my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of the fallen soldier and interpreter.

Four U.S. Marines died Tuesday when they walked into a well-laid ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar province. Seven Afghan troops and an interpreter for the Marine commander also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle, which lasted seven hours.

Three American service members and 14 Afghan security force members were wounded.

It was the largest number of American military trainers to die in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.

The battle took place around the remote hamlet of Gangigal, in a valley about six miles from the Pakistani border, after local elders invited the U.S. and Afghan forces for a meeting.

American officers said there was no doubt that they’d walked into a trap, as the insurgents were dug in at the village, and had preset their weapons and their fields of fire.

It was a trap alright….but one they could of extradited themselves out of if not for the rules of engagement laid out by Obama’s General, General Stanley McChrystal:

Airstrikes by coalition forces in Afghanistan have dropped dramatically in the three months Gen. Stanley McChrystal has led the war effort there, reflecting his new emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties and protecting the population.

NATO fixed-wing aircraft dropped 1,211 bombs and other munitions during the past three months — the peak of the fighting season — compared with 2,366 during the same period last year, according to military statistics. The nearly 50% decline in airstrikes comes with an influx of more than 20,000 U.S. troops this year and an increase in insurgent attacks.

The shift is the result of McChrystal’s new directives, said Air Force Col. Mark Waite, an official at the air operations center in southwest Asia. Ground troops are less inclined to call for bombing or strafing runs, though they often have an aircraft conduct a “show of force,” a flyby to scare off insurgents, or use planes for surveillance, Waite said.

The Marines who were killed were not the ones less inclined to call for a bombing run, in fact they were depending on it to get them out of the trap….and none came:

We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.

“We will do to you what we did to the Russians,” the insurgent’s leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.

While the enemy was directly responsible for their deaths, those rules of engagement, and those leaders who refused to send help also have blood on their hands.

The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village’s first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.

Herschal Smith:

The new ROE should have been dealt with as a classified memorandum of encouragement and understanding to consider holistic consequences of actions rather than a change to formal rules by which our Marines and Soldiers are prosecuted by courts. Yet the damage has been and continues to be done by poor decisions at the highest levels of leadership.

Damn the ROE.

Herschal also takes issue with the leaders using the Anbar tactics in a completely different theater. Take for example the mission these Marines were on. To go talk to village leaders in an attempt to gain an alliance. But without the necessary force to back them up if it goes bad….and it did:

This was my fear – that counterinsurgency tactics advocated in FM 3-24 would become so religiously ingrained into the thinking of the armed forces that they would believe that it applies in any situation and without the necessary force projection to back up the nice intent.

Carrots and stick, folks. All carrots and no sticks makes for brave warriors who perish on the field of battle because the local fighters have little to fear – not because of our own warriors, but because of the lack of resourcing and tactics being implemented.

Things are going to turn real bad in Afghanistan because of the poor decisions being made by Obama, his Generals, and NATO. And my fear is that once enough of our bravest have died he will cut and run and leave that country to our enemy instead of doing what is necessary to win as Bush did in Iraq.

UPDATE

The calls for help was witnessed by a reporter:

A McClatchy newspapers’ journalist who witnessed the battle reported that a team of Marine trainers made repeated appeals for air and artillery support after being pinned down by insurgents in the village of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province.

Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says it was the distance the helicopters had to fly that was responsible for the late help but the reporter who was with the troops disputes this as well as the soldiers on the ground.

According to the McClatchy report by Jonathan Landay, the US advisors assisting Afghan forces had been assured before the operation that “air cover would be five minutes away.”

UPDATE

Check this out…

Lt. Fabayo and several other soldiers later said they’d seen women and children in the village shuttling ammunition to fighters positioned in windows and roofs. Across the valley and from their ridgeline outposts, the Afghans and Americans fired back.

Read the whole account in the link I just gave, written by the reporter who witnessed the whole thing. In the reporters own words:

I wasn’t as terrified as I was angry: angry at the absence of air support, angry that there was no artillery fire

It’s a must read.

NATO fighter-bombers attacked two fuel trucks after the Taliban hijacked the vehicles in Kunduz province and beheaded the drivers. The trucks stalled while crossing a riverbed in the Taliban-controlled Ali Abad district and were reportedly hit just as local villagers swarmed the tankers to siphon fuel. The Taliban reportedly encouraged the villagers to take the fuel just before the airstrike.

Casualty reports on the number of Taliban and civilians killed have varied, but 93 people have been reported killed. Kunduz Governor Engineer Mohammad Omar claimed 45 Taliban fighters as well as their commander, Mullah Abdul Rahman, were killed during the attack. Razaq Yaqoobi, the provincial chief of police, said 65 Taliban fighters were among those killed.

~~~

“After ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] observed the insurgent activity and assessed civilians were not in the area, a local ISAF commander authorized an air strike,” the initial ISAF press release on the incident stated. “A large number of insurgents were reported killed or injured and the fuel trucks were destroyed in the attack.”

When US Secy of Defense, Robert Gates, hand picked McChrystal to command both the ISAF and American/NATO troops in Afghanistan in June, had stressed the reduction of civilian collateral damage as one of the highest priorities. In July, Within weeks, McChrystal issued new ROE tactical directives to all foreign forces under ISAF/NATO command, which essentially said if any civilians were present, let the enemy go and do not shoot.

This is the first, and largest number of casualties being blamed on Western forces since his assumption of ISAF/NATO command, and his release of the kinder/gentler ROEs.

This event, following the much heralded “new strategy” of Afghan safety over killing the enemy meant to win hearts and minds, resulted in General McChrystal making an unprecedented televised speech to the Afghan people.

In an unprecedented televised address to the Afghan people, the general said his forces had launched the air strike against what they thought was a Taliban target. He promised to make the outcome of an investigation public.

“As Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, nothing is more important than the safety and protection of the Afghan people,” he said in the taped address, released in versions dubbed into the two official languages, Dari and Pashtu.

“I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously.”

Gen. McChrystal also did a brief personal tour of the site, and sent a delegation of NATO fact finders to interview surviving victims and relatives.

The area, formerly a relatively quiet part of the country, is patrolled by the 4000 German NATO troops who are banned (by Berlin) from operating in any combat zones of that country. But of late, the region is becoming increasingly under the control of the Taliban. It was only days ago that a suicide bomber wounded four German troops.

As the Afghan citizens mourned and buried their dead, the armed Taliban stood careful watch.

“We will take revenge. A lot of innocent people were killed here,” one of the Taliban fighters, only his eyes left uncovered by a thick scarf, said at the funeral.

“Every family around here has victims,” said Sahar Gul, a 54-year-old village elder from Yaqoubi. “There are entire families that have been destroyed.”

Village elders said 50 people were buried in Yaqoubi and 70 more in nearby villages, although Afghan officials and the Red Cross say the precise death toll may never be known.

That pledge of “revenge” may have already claimed it’s first victims… an as of yet unidentified New York Times journalist and his intepreter who were visiting the site when kidnapped.

The journalist, who went to talk to villagers in Omarkhel village in the Chardarah district was kidnapped by Taliban militants, Mohammad Omar, the provincial governor, told the German Press Agency dpa.

“The journalist, who works for the New York Times, and his translator were blindfolded by the militants and taken to an unknown location” the governor said, adding that Afghan security forces have begun a search operation in the area to track down the kidnappers.

He said the Afghan army soldiers found the journalist’s abandoned vehicle in the area.

A Taliban commander in Chardarah district confirmed to dpa that their fighters caught the journalist along with his translator in Easakhel village of the district on Saturday morning.

He said the Taliban leadership would decide on their fate.

Despite the promise of a new strategy built around minimizing collateral damage, and even a revamping of the inefficient and cumbersome ISAF command structure in the past few weeks, ISAF/NATO’s woes will reflect upon a POTUS Obama, who remains subdued about the “war of necessity” and increasing casualties of US Operation Enduring Freedom and US NATO troops.

Even the western media – who took disturbing delight in daily body bag counts in Iraq while Bush was in the Oval Office – is increasingly nonchalant about the increasingly difficult task the ISAF/NATO and the US Central Command under General David Petraeus face.

Nor does it appear the Democrats are going to be patient much longer with Obama’s Afghanistan efforts.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. must focus more on building Afghan security forces. That view was endorsed by Sen. Jack Reed, who is also on the committee and spent two days in Afghanistan this past week with Levin, D-Mich.

Their unease follows a NATO airstrike early Friday on hijacked fuel tankers that killed as many as 70 people.

~~~

Congress returns to work in the week ahead, just as President Barack Obama receives a new military review of Afghanistan strategy. Officials expect it will be followed up by a request for at least a modest increase in U.S. troops battling insurgents in the 8-year-old war.

Obama came into office pledging to shift U.S. focus from the war in Iraq to the Afghan fight, which had long been a secondary priority. But as war-weary Americans have watched 21,000 more troops go to Afghanistan this year, and U.S. casualties rise, support for the war has waned.

As a result, lawmakers say they want the U.S. to more quickly train and equip the Afghan Army and police so the embattled country can take over its own security needs.

“There are a lot of ways to speed up the numbers and capabilities of the Afghan army and police. They are strongly motivated,” Levin said from Kuwait. “I think that we should pursue that course … before we consider a further increase in combat forces beyond what’s already been planned to be sent in the months ahead.”

Levin said there is a growing consensus on the need to expedite training and equipping the Afghan army to improve security in Afghanistan, where 51 U.S. troops died in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.

As usual, it appears the Congress is behind the eight ball on just who has control of what in Afghanistan since the UN demanded that ISAF take control, and NATO over the ISAF back in 2003. Because part of that ISAF Command restructure around the time of McChrystal’s appointment as ISAF/NATO commander, part of that was to move the Afghan training from the American umbrella to the ISAF/NATO.

“We have agreed in principle to create a new military headquarters within ISAF at the level of a three-star general to oversee day-to-day operations,” NATO Secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters at the end of a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.

The new command structure is necessary as the current Command ISAF cannot cope with the many tasks, explained de Hoop Scheffer.

ISAF is now 60,000-strong and growing. There is increasing requirement for coordination between ISAF and the Afghan government and international actors in the country. The alliance has also decided to establish a NATO training mission for Afghan National Army and police. “Command ISAF cannot do this all,” said de Hoop Scheffer.

The ministers decided to set up a uniform NATO training mission that will move training from American umbrella to NATO training command.

De Hoop Scheffer said the training mission will help train and mentor both the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, including gendarmerie training.

NATO’s existing equipment donation scheme for the Afghan National Army will now be expanded to police as well.

This “new and improved” cluster f*#k creates the classic problem of too many commanders spoiling the theatre, as you can see suggested command structure… all of whom still answer to NATO’s senior military authority, the Military Committee.

What becomes a most interesting question is: what kind of repercussions could the US face on the int’l stage if the anti-Afghanistan US crowd lose their will and pull all US involvement… the portion of troops still operating under OEF, and the other half functioning as NATO forces? Certainly, as a force cutting and running from the fight, remaining NATO forces could not stand alone. And, in fact, can the US abandon a UN directive with ISAF/NATO control without some charges arising… as well as the international ridicule and distaste that would ensue?

Brought down to a simplistic level, the goals in Afghanistan should be a clear vision. Ramping the citizens up to speed on agriculture in order to feed their population, helping develop intra-village commerce, communication and infrastructure, and securing the nation enough that outside investors may wish to come in to further explore what may be a modest (if not unconfirmed) potential for gypsum or copper. Their oil deposits, while not of any substance to catapult them to an export state, could be developed enough to contribute to their own energy needs. In short, they need a leg up to economic development by the outside world of private enterprise… none of which can happen without the country being secured.

One thing is for sure… Afghanistan strategy by ISAF and NATO appears to be ill-conceived, and even worse implemented. And while every level of politician maneuvers for their optimum power position on what to do about Afghanistan, the Afghan villagers, the NATO troops (of all nations, including the US) – operating under their nanny ROE regulations – and the US OEF forces are the ones literally taking the bullets and bombs. Cut and run is no option… but neither is the current path, determined by all to large of a military “committee”.

KABUL -The U.S. military said Wednesday six American troops were killed in Afghanistan, as militants killed six election workers amid growing fears on the eve of the presidential election that insurgents would mar the vote.

Two troops were killed in gunfire in the south on Wednesday, the U.S. military said, while a third was killed in an unspecified hostile attack. The U.S. also said a roadside bomb Tuesday in the south killed two troops, while another died of noncombat-related injuries. No other details were released.

The deaths bring to at least 32 the number of American troops killed in the country this month, a record pace. Forty-four U.S. troops died in Afghanistan last month, the deadliest month of the eight-year war.

And where are is the anti-war left and their buddies in the MSM now? Bush is gone so now the casualties are no big deal as we slowly lose grip on this war:

“Is the military mission to engage, push back and dismantle the Taliban networks,” asks Bing West, “with population protection being a tactic to gain tips and local militia, or is the military mission to build a nation by US soldiers protecting the widespread population, with engagements against the Taliban as a byproduct?”

West figures it’s the latter, for two reasons. First, non-kinetic operations are more palatable to the American public, the lifeblood of any war effort. That’s why you see Navy recruiting commercials emphasizing foreign tsunami and disaster relief just as frequently as their standard warheads-on-foreheads fare. Second, denying insurgents use of the local population is prime-directive number one in any low-intensity fight. There’s two ways to accomplish that mission: brutalize the population until they’re broken like a well-trained horse (a favorite insurgent tactic) or — because the first option is proscribed by our Western values — feed, shelter, and protect them until you can bring your superior firepower to bear on the now-isolated enemy.

That soft power, it seems, is the new hotness in Afghanistan. But is it costing us our ability to inflict severe casualties on the Taliban? Controlling the population is only the first step in a successful COIN fight, the second is decimating the opposition to a point where they can no longer function as a combat entity. West lays this out succinctly:

…our ground forces are not inflicting heavy losses on the enemy. However, the annual bill for the US military in Afghanistan exceeds $70 billion, with another four to six billion for development. We’ve already spent $38 billion on Afghan reconstruction. Congress may eventually balk at spending such sums year after year. The problem is we’re liable to be gradually pulled out while the Taliban is intact. Nation-building alone is not sufficient; the Taliban must be disrupted.

And we are not disrupting the enemy. The British see this also:

In March 2007, soldier turned journalist Anthony Loyd thought the war in Afghanistan was “winnable”. The tide was turning against the Taleban, he wrote.

That was from a man who was “there” and we all accord great respect to those knowing figures who have “been there”, as able to divine from their very presence all there is to know about the region they happen to visit.

Well, Anthony Loyd is back “there”, in Sangin actually, where on the eve of the presidential election he is reporting the official view that: “Helmand locals too scared of Taleban to vote in presidential election”.

There was little to show yesterday, he writes, for the copious expenditure of British money, bullets and blood over the past three years in Sangin. With less than 24 hours to go before the start of voting in Afghanistan’s presidential election today the streets were all but empty and the bazaar was, in effect, closed.

One more reason why the handing over of this mission to NATO was a mistake. NATO refuses to send the number of troops needed to win this thing and the NATO troops that are there have rules of engagement that are just plain weak. Ever since the handover in 2006 the situation has slowly deteriorated. But Obama has pledged to defeat this enemy in the War on Terror:

The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a – this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

And you thought the War on Terror didn’t exist anymore….heh.

Well, the number of our young dying is going up, the left is silent over the matter, and Obama seems to have no plans to win this thing other then, as Bing West said above, “US soldiers protecting the widespread population, with engagements against the Taliban as a byproduct?”

Not a winning combination.

UPDATE

Whoa boy!

Getting rid of antiquated and cumbersome warheads, 2,200 down to 1,500 or so, and trimming delivery rockets from 1,600 to around 1,000, is a good thing, if it ever happens, but such reduction would have absolutely no impact on either nation’s present realities. Elimination of a few war heads, or WVMDs, (weapons of very massive destruction), leaves entrenched and siloed enough destructive power to annihilate everything living on the face of the Earth a few times over. We shall hear over the coming months whether the Administration’s claims of these reductions ever actually come to pass. The odds are not terribly favorable to the President’s claims. Any part-time student of international affairs knows that Putin will not allow any such compliance under his watch, if the U.S. proceeds with its defense shield deployment in Poland and Czech.

Did America advance ground on obtaining any cooperation whatsoever on its objective of reigning-in Iran? Not a nod. Putin is very comfortable with selling Iran anything nuclear that it wishes to put its hands on. He has to sell Iranians something, anything, since they won’t buy his cars. Iran strategically presents the most critical foreign relations pillar to potential peace in the Middle East, and for now it remains an ace in Putin’s hand.

Countries expected by Putin of remaining within the “Russian sphere of influence,” such as Ukraine and Georgia, are making efforts to slip away from the bear’s grasp through entry into NATO. While the U.S. supports their inclusion, this stance is considered a direct threat to Russian hegemony in the region, further aggravated by the U.S. ballistic missile defense system intentions. Putin is not buying the sales pitch that this deployment is intended as a deterrent against Iran, no matter how the U.S. presents it. Putin just can’t take a joke. Of course it’s intended to protect against Russian aggression, however, in reality, well, it would augment the threat looming over Moscow, … just in case.

When Obama said to a business audience in Moscow, “Along the way, you gave us a pretty good deal on Alaska. Thank you,” was this intended to liven the discussion? Was it delivered to remind them Czar Alexander II, who received less than a penny per acre in gold for it, had shafted them? … At least under 21st Century perception it seem a really bad deal. Is this a novel method of referencing a long history of trade? Russians never quite swallowed that pill, and Obama might have thought twice, or thrice, before raising this caustic historical Russian forget-me-not on Russian soil. Given Alaska’s current importance as a source of natural resources, it should have been evident that such recollection would rub some salt on an old wound. It should also have been obvious that it would be received as a backhand smack at Putin’s urgent quest for new productive oil and gas fields in Siberia, and more recently in contested areas of the Arctic. It would serve little here to imagine in much detail how the MSM might have treated Bush, had he made such a gaffe.

Some of Putin’s highest priorities are oil and gas, their control, and their prices. He will support any measures that can sustain oil prices above $65 per barrel so that he can continue to fund his expensive power base. America’s wishes are for something less than $40 per barrel, rendering Putin’s ears deaf to any such discussion on this topic. Putin also needs to be seen as the nation’s strongman, and has been almost Hollywoodian in the shaping of that image. He must be seen as the defender of the motherland, and he enjoys approval by a comfortable majority of his countrymen. While Obama’s insecurity surfaces as arrogance, IMHO, Putin’s insecurity effuses as “My ego will take no prisoners, and my superiority doesn’t care what you think.” Any slights to his ego can only result in automatic and deep setbacks to pretense of cozy relations even though there is a long laundry list of expectations by each side.

The MSM has applauded Obama’s appeal to Russia’s youth that they should ignore past agenda (Putin), and take responsibility for a new 21st century agenda. Such communing with young Russians should help negotiations along astonishingly well with the country’s boss. Still, the MSM considers this strangeness, “a solid foundation,” for the future of the relationship. There is always something to be said for looking at a glass as being half full. There is also something to be said for realistic assessment, which provides a viable platform for effective strategic thinking. This U.S. representation in Moscow, IMHO, established absolutely no inroads that might provide launching pads for addressing the serious confrontational bargaining sessions that Putin’s long-established, aggressive and firm belligerence might budge for.

Obama apologists have excused him with commentary that he was simply stating historical fact. Such perception is baffling. Putin has been around a while, perhaps when visiting him, Obama should have taken more care to recall that his title is that of Prime Minister. No one in Russia does anything of import that his iron fist does not pre-approve. This too is historical fact, but perhaps Obama was tired, and when he mentioned Stalin, well, Stalin is part of Russian history after all, is he not?

The Moscow trip was not a favorable photo-op as it turned out, with Putin doing his best to appear nonplussed, and the meetings seemed to have accomplished nothing of substance. What was the point? The warheads will likely stay where they are, the missile shield has a doubtful future, and Putin will continue feeding Iran’s dreams of nuclear power. Putin understands America’s overwhelming military power. He cannot replicate it, however, he will remain an irritant, unwilling to appear acquiescent to any demands from America and the West. We can be assured that any backwards move Putin might relent to, he will extract maximum price for.

Crossposted from The Pacific Gate Post.

Thousands of US Marines stormed into the Helmand river valley under cover of night yesterday, the opening phase of Barack Obama’s new high-risk strategy in Afghanistan. In Operation Khanjar, or Strike of the Sword, hailed by one commander as a “D-Day moment”, 4,000 Marines entered the lower Helmand river valley, hoping to do in hours what British troops have failed to do in three years. It is part of a massive surge ordered by Mr Obama, doubling the number of American troops and flooding Helmand with 10,000 Marines – far in excess of the 8,000-strong British contingent stationed there since 2006. Operation Khanjar aims to capture and hold a swath of Taleban territory, opening the way for a massive influx of development aid and allowing the Afghan Government to put down roots before its presidential election on August 20. The election is a critical test for the leadership of President Karzai, once a darling of the West, now tainted by accusations of corruption and ineffectuality yet still regarded as Afghanistan’s least bad option.

And the enemy slips away:

The Marines faced little Taliban resistance as they began moving into villages in the Helmand River valley, a Taliban stronghold that is one of the world’s largest opium-producing regions. Marine commanders said Taliban fighters seemed to have melted into the surrounding countryside rather than staying to fight the large US force. “There’s been sporadic fighting, but it’s been light,” Capt. Bill Pelletier, a Marine spokesman, said in an interview from southern Afghanistan. “Our focus isn’t on going in and killing Taliban; it’s on driving those folks out of the area and keeping them from coming back.”

More:

Columns of US Marines in eight-wheeled armored vehicles pushed deep into southern Afghanistan on Thursday in an attempt to cut off Taliban supply lines from Pakistan and restore order in areas long neglected by short-handed NATO forces. The movement of the Marines to the town of Khan Neshin in the lower Helmand River valley is the most significant deployment of US forces in areas near the Pakistani border with southern Afghanistan, and it reflects a growing concern among US military and intelligence officials that much of the violence that has plagued the south is linked to a flow of fighters and munitions from Pakistan’s Baluchistan region. The troops encountered roadside bombs and small-arms attacks, which resulted in the death of one Marine, but commanders opted to mute their return fire. In the first 24 hours of the operation, the Marines did not lob artillery or call for fighter planes to drop bombs. The drive to Khan Neshin is part of a Marine campaign to root out Taliban insurgents by restoring the authority of local officials and police departments in the Helmand River valley.

The afghani’s are hoping this new offensive will lay the groundwork for a peaceful election in two months time. If the Taliban hold power in many areas you can bet they will do their best to keep people from going to the polls and the Helmand area is one of those areas under Taliban control….but not for long as my Marines come in.

Add this to the positive signs from the registration push:

Some analysts see positive glimmers in the voter registration results. Some 4 million Afghans added their names to the voting rolls in a voter registration drive that began last year, far exceeding expectations given the deteriorating security situation.

“It does give some hope,” says Col. Christopher Langton, a retired British Army officer and Afghanistan expert. “But one has to balance that by saying registration isn’t voting.”

And we can hope the election goes smoothly, with the help of our Marines.

Of course NATO is in charge over there, wonder why it took the US to actually accomplish something.

Iran
-President Obama campaigned on the promise to “talk” to Iran, and made the world expect that simply talking to the Iranians would make the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism (which is actively attacking Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan as you read this) stop making their nuclear bomb factories. He tried backdoor communications. He tried writing a letter. He sent a video to the Iranian people. He tried UN communications. He’s even trying direct communications in the UN negotiations. None of this has worked one bit. Iran now boasts it has 7000 centrifuges up and running, and the Israelis are saying that if Obama doesn’t get some sort of result soon….they’ll attack Iran on their own. Such an attack would no doubt bring a retaliation from Iran, and US forces are literally, physically under caught in the crossfire of ballistic missiles, airstrikes, and commando operations. Talk might work, but it’s time to start talking fast.

Afghanistan
-President Obama has sent a few more troops there, but only half as many as were originally going to go. Sec Defense Gates says that making Afghanistan a secure & stable ally in the war on terror is an objective the US cannot meet. SO, Obama has sent more diplomats instead. He also went to Europe (as promised during his campaign) to get NATO to send more troops, but he failed.

Pakistan
-Obama’s stepped up covert operations inside Pakistan, killed hundreds of civilians with Predator drone missile attacks, and put the nuclear armed nation of 170million people on the verge of collapse.

Thailand
-President Obama has done nothing to stave off the collapse of that Southeast Asian nation, and it is in the midst of collapsing.

Somalia
-Somalia effectively collapsed years and years ago. Since then piracy has become its biggest source of GDP. Recently, the long-ignored problem of Somali piracy hit home when an American-flagged cargo ship was seized. The crew-not confident that they’d be saved by the US Navy, Obama Admin diplomatic talks, or the UN forces in the area-rescued themselves. The Captain was taken hostage, and President Obama chose to vote PRESENT rather than give an order to rescue the hostage from the 4 teenage tribesman/pirates. Instead, his vague order was to take action only if the hostage was in imminent danger (this after the Captain had tried to escape and been shot at, but apparently being shot at isn’t imminent danger). Thankfully, 4 US Navy SEAL Team snipers fired in unison and made truly remarkable shots. The issues was closed, and now the dazed and confused Obama Admin policy regarding Somali pirates has shifted to chest-thumping bragging, credit stealing, and impotent threats to attack pirate bases on shore.

North Korea
-North Korea was kind enough to give a full 6 weeks of daily warnings that it was going to launch an ICBM in direct violation of multiple UN resolutions. President Obama said that words have to mean something. He said that a rogue regime cannot be allowed to flaunt, dismiss, and ignore the will of the United Nations. Sadly, his words meant nothing to the North Koreans, so they launched their missile while the Obama Admin in effect did nothing and failed to stop or even dissuade the illegal act.

Mexico
-Like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, and other emerging crisis’, Mexico is also on the verge of collapse. Again, the Obama Administration has in effect done nothing to curb this. However, there was talk of immigration reform in the United States which would allow Mexican refugees from a collapse to come here to the United States where jobs are plentiful, and the economy can support the influx of millions of poverty stricken, jobless, homeless people.

It’s no longer the “War on Terror” but the “Overseas Contingency Operation”. Great. We went from a bad name to a worse PC-driven name.

While the anti-war pro-peace liberal progressive base are calling for an end to the war on Afghanistan, President Obama is doing just the opposite, doubling down on an old way forward by escalating the war in a manner that is consistent with, and reminiscent of, what his predecessor might have done:

His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 _ and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them _ so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war. [Translation: When Afghans stand up, we'll stand down]

That, he said, is “how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.”

There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.

Kori Schake, also writing at Shadow Government, notes how this sounds quite a bit like McCain:

President Obama’s plan for Afghanistan is first rate. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like John McCain’s strategy for Afghanistan announced last summer, which is all to the good. And Obama outlined the resources necessary to carry it out: additional troops; greater participation by non-military departments; focus on training Afghan security forces; strengthening Afghan and Pakistani institutions of government; 5-year assistance packages for both countries; routine, high-level trilateral consultations with Afghanistan and Pakistan; creation of a Contact Group of neighbors and contributors; and trying to separate reconcilables from irreconcilables among the bad guys. Obama said he will set clear metrics to gauge progress, which is important and should be gotten underway fast.

And this is why the CodePink-types are up in arms; whereas NORMAL Americans from the left who might join in with pitchforks if this were announced by Bush, are more subdued and receptive that Obama is taking the pragmatic, responsible course of action here. By example, Feaver notes that Bush critics and Obama water carriers

who praise benchmarks in the Afghan strategy are the same folks who rushed to declare the Iraq surge a failure because certain benchmarks were not met by 2007.

Will the timelines calling for withdrawal arrive anytime soon?

Certainly, the lip-service has somewhat changed, as President Obama attempts to present to the world a “kinder, gentler” U.S. of A. But in our obsession with wanting to be loved by the world, we run the risk of not being respected by our enemies.

Even though, on the domestic front, President Obama seems to be implementing drastic changes we can’t, won’t, and don’t believe in, just how much of a departure is his foreign policy from that of President George W. Bush? Was Bush really so radical? Or are he and his successor carrying out a foreign policy that is more consistently pro-American than it is pro-partisan? And looking more similar than different?

American Power writes:

If folks are going to criticize Obama on Afghanistan, it should be for not doing enough. As Michael Yon noted this week, “the increase of 21,000 U.S. troops is likely just a bucket of water on the growing bonfire.” Michael Yon is hardly a “neocon,” although the very “fantasists” that Larison excoriates have suggested that despite Obama’s caution, “the president is pragmatic in the best sense of the word.”

Peter Feaver reports on how the Washington Post drew a contrast between President Bush’s last Afghanistan speech and President Obama’s recent one. According to Feaver, he sees Obama’s rhetoric as endorsing a minimalist approach, yet carrying out the maximalist one favored by Ambassador Holbrooke, General Petraeus, and Feaver’s loyal opposition colleague, Christian Brose.

Feaver:

But is there really a substantive contrast? What Obama committed the United States to do — for the narrowest of counterterrorism objectives — is build up the governance structures of Afghanistan and Pakistan with a massive influx of economic aid; build up the security structures of Afghanistan and Pakistan with a massive influx of military aid; enable the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to exercise effective sovereignty over all of their territory; and shift the Afghan economy once and for all from a reliance on narcotics that, in Obama’s words “undermines the economy” and “fuels the insurgency.” (As Tom Donnelly has wryly observed, Obama has assigned Holbrooke to a counternarcotics program that is, in essence, the same program that Holbrooke called “the most wasteful and ineffective program I have seen in 40 years.”) As my Shadow colleague Philip Zelikow has noted, this set of objectives appears to be largely the Bush agenda, as determined by the strategic review the Bush team completed at the end of last year.

Even Iran doesn’t appear fooled:

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed overtures from President Barack Obama on Saturday, saying Tehran does not see any change in U.S. policy under its new administration.

~~~

“They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven’t seen any change,” Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

A Bush policy by any other name is still a Bush policy. Since President Obama wasn’t above plagiarizing from speeches, why not policy matters as well? So long as it’s disguised as “anything other than Bush”.

Actually, amidst the criticism of appearing weak, even some of President Obama’s words echo the tough talk of former President Bush:

“I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan,” Obama said. “Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.”

Didn’t Bush get nailed to the cross for bringing up Sept. 11th in speeches?

Well, whatever the case may be, wherever it may be fought- from Iraq to Pakistan to Somalia to Indonesia to Afghanistan- and whatever it may be called, this is not Obama’s war or Bush’s war: It’s America’s war. And we better fight it to win.

Klein returns from his useless adventure with little more than a pimp-punditry paper on excusing isolationist policies rather than engagement of genuinely bad guys; suicidal members of death cults bent on hunting down and killing Americans by any and all means. His article whines about how hard things are over there as if the very word “Afghanistan” isn’t a historical synonym for “ass end of the world,” “land of the nearly impossible,” or at least “graveyard of empires.” Of course it’s hard over there. It’s a war zone in the worst place on the planet. It’s a place that has known little more than war going back almost 10,000 years. The people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer by western standards because building schools has never been as useful to them as building bunkers, trenches, and dugouts. Their ideas about women, human rights, etc are not western, because the west has always asked the two connecting questions: “Why are we there”+”Why not just leave?” …and then left!

Klein actually managed to go all the way to Afghanistan to report on the insurgency there, and he never read a book on what an insurgency IS. He never read the 911 Commission report on WHY the United States and NATO are in Afghanistan, and (my favorite) the title to his article labels it an aimless war, questions why “We” [the United States] is in Afghanistan, and the man doesn’t even mention conversations with United States forces, officials, etc.

“Why Are We [Americans] there”….let’s ask the Canadians, Dutich, British, and then write about how aimless the American effort there is? Talk about arrogance on the part of a writer, his editors, a magazine, and the ignorance of its readers.

The war in Afghanistan was proposed by the Clinton Administration’s Richard Clarke in 1999 (according to his book, the 911 Commission, Bill Clinton’s memoirs, Madeline Albright’s book, and others). Why? Because Al Queda and their political wing, the Taliban, were using Afghanistan as a terrorist state bent on attacking the United States. Two years later, they succeed. Tomahawk missiles were not readily available. In fact, even ammo for tanks is scarce, but they had two things in abundance: hate and conviction. From that point, all they needed was a few guys and some box cutters. 3000 people died as a result, and where does that hate come from? It comes from the abandonment of Afghanistan to a land of infinite chaos and war instead of a land of hope and peace.

So Klein, in complete ignorance of the 911 Commission report, multiple Clinton Administration memoirs, and without talking and citing any Americans in Afghanistan, asks, “Why are we [Americans] there?”

If I turned in a story to my 8th grade English teacher, and the story was about eagles, but all I talked about were doves….she’s have torn it up. This goes beyond stupidity-even beyond propagandist arrogance. It’s irresponsible. It’s dangerous. It reinforces the idea that poor writing, incompetent editors, and vain efforts are killing print journalism.

The Aimless War? I think not. It’s time Mr. Klein and his editors looked at page ONE of the US Army Counterinsurgency Manual:

1-1. Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of warfare. Globalization, technological advancement, urbanization, and extremists who conduct suicide attacks for their cause have certainly influenced contemporary conflict; however, warfare in the 21st century retains many of the characteristics it has exhibited since ancient times. Warfare remains a violent clash of interests between organized groups characterized by the use of force. Achieving victory still depends on a group’s ability to mobilize support for its political interests (often religiously or ethnically based) and to generate enough violence to achieve political consequences. Means to achieve these goals are not limited to conventional forces employed by nation-states.

1-2. Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself. Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). Stated another way, an insurgency is an organized, protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken the control and legitimacy of an established government, occupying power, or other political authority while increasing insurgent control. Counterinsurgency is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP 1- 02). These definitions are a good starting point, but they do not properly highlight a key paradox: though insurgency and COIN are two sides of a phenomenon that has been called revolutionary war or internal war, they are distinctly different types of operations. In addition, insurgency and COIN are included within a broad category of conflict known as irregular warfare.

1-3. Political power is the central issue in insurgencies and counterinsurgencies; each side aims to get the people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate. Insurgents use all available tools—political (including diplomatic), informational (including appeals to religious, ethnic, or ideological beliefs), military, and economic—to overthrow the existing authority. This authority may be an established government or an interim governing body. Counterinsurgents, in turn, use all instruments of national power to sustain the established or emerging government and reduce the likelihood of another crisis emerging.

1-4. Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government’s rule. Achieving this condition requires the government to eliminate as many causes of the insurgency as feasible. This can include eliminating those extremists whose beliefs prevent them from ever reconciling with the government. Over time, counterinsurgents aim to enable a country or regime to provide the security and rule of law that allow establishment of social services and growth of economic activity. COIN thus involves the application of national power in the political, military, economic, social, information, and infrastructure fields and disciplines. Political and military leaders and planners should never underestimate its scale and complexity; moreover, they should recognize that the Armed Forces cannot succeed in COIN alone.

emphasis added
link

Perhaps the best source for understanding why NATO and the United States are in Afghanistan can be found in the 911 Commission’s final report. There are several sections that detail WHY Afghanistan was and is important to the war with Al Queda (a war declared by Bin Laden in 1992; sixteen years ago). Perhaps the best can be found in sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5

He returned to Afghanistan.
2.5 AL QAEDA’S RENEWAL IN AFGHANISTAN
(1996–1998)
Bin Ladin flew on a leased aircraft from Khartoum to Jalalabad, with a refueling stopover in the United Arab Emirates.62 He was accompanied by family members and bodyguards, as well as by al Qaeda members who had been close associates since his organization’s 1988 founding in Afghanistan. Dozens of additional militants arrived on later flights.

No Mr. Klein, AMERICA and the rest of the world are in Afghanistan because if they weren’t, it would become another terrorist state. There is historical evidence to prove this as well as theoretical. Moreover, there is a plan for Afghanistan, but one cannot understand why Americans are in Afghanistan by asking Dutch, French, Canadian, or British soldiers who are there as peacekeepers. Why? Because American troops are there not only as peacekeepers, but also on the attack in a counterinsurgency. It’s not the same as in Iraq as no two battles or wars are ever the same (this ain’t a football game). The coming surge and shift of operations in Afghanistan is necessary, allegedly supported by the left (including President-elect Obama), and while having many of the same maxims and tactics will be as unique as every setting and scenario is.

How sad is it that TIME magazine and a veteran “writer” like Joe Klein could get away with such a puff-piece of poorly-written, sensationalist rhetoric; an article with a title that’s completely unsupported by the text within? Maybe, as Newsweek and other print pubs look at layoffs….Joe Klein should go back to Kabul and start his own publication? One wonders how fast he’d be demanding MORE peacekeepers were he to live and work there?

US, British, and Afghan forces defeated two Taliban attacks in eastern and southern Afghanistan on Sunday. Seventy Taliban were killed during the two engagements. Five were killed as they attempted to attack from inside Pakistan.

In eastern Afghanistan, US forces launched two separate artillery strikes into Pakistan after Taliban mortar teams attempted to hit a US outpost inside Afghanistan. The outpost is located in the border district of Barmal in Paktika province, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) told The Long War Journal. The strikes were launched across the border into North Waziristan.

ISAF said the strikes were coordinated with the Pakistani military. US forces launched the first artillery strike after three Taliban were seen setting up a mortar tube. Pakistani forces confirmed two Taliban were killed. An hour later, a Taliban mortar team was seen setting up to hit a Pakistan Border Point. US forces launched a second volley “in defense of the Pakistani military.” Three Taliban were confirmed killed by Pakistani forces.

link

On August 21, the pirates seized the Iranian bulk carrier, carrying 42,500 tons of minerals and industrial products.

“The ship Dianat was released on Friday morning after even weeks of negotiations with Somali pirates and all 29 members of the crew are safe,” Said public relations office of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL).

The ship is sailing towards international waters, IRISL added.

link

NATO officials said the seven frigates from a group that were to have taken part in an exercise in the Suez Canal region would arrive off the Somali coast within two weeks in response to a request from the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP).

The decision to send the ships was taken at a meeting of defence ministers from the 26 NATO member states in Budapest, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said.

“Piracy is a serious problem for shipping in that area. It is also an immediate threat to the lives of the people in Somalia,” he said. “Substantially more than 40 percent of the population depend on the food aid being delivered by ship.”

The European Union has agreed to start planning for a joint naval force that could be ready for deployment by the end of the year.

link

The US continues to target al Qaeda and Taliban safe houses and training camps in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal areas. The latest attack killed nine, including six “foreign militants” – a reference to al Qaeda operatives.

At least two missiles were reported to have been fired at two known Taliban safe houses in the village of Tati near the city of Miramshah. A Reuters reporter saw an unmanned US Predator aircraft flying in the area and conducting the attack.

“The attack targeted the house of a local Taliban commander named Hafiz Sahar Gul,” The News reported. Three member of Gul’s family and six al Qaeda operatives were killed in the strike, according to Pakistani sources. No senior Taliban or al Qaeda leaders have been identified as killed.

link