“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today. “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.
He’s probably right
This is the moment….when Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and currently chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday that he opposes sending more troops unless conditions on the ground improve in Afghanistan. I’d say that’s the basic gist of it. I think James Dobbins states it very well:
James Dobbins, who served as a special envoy to Afghanistan during the Bush administration and is now at the Rand Corp., said that Kerry had made many “sensible” points in the speech but that he found the conclusion unsatisfactory.
“The argument seems to be that we’re not going to send more troops until we start winning — which seems to me to be an inversion of the usual sequence,” he said.
This is the moment….when on the same day, Nobel Peace Laureate, President Obama, gave an address at the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, in part to offer a statement on the 14 Americans who lost their lives in two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan.
“I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,” Obama said to loud applause. “And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt.”
The problem I have with this, is that we already have troops in theater in “harm’s way”, in what he claimed as a “war of necessity”; and his top general whom he had chosen is requesting reinforcements. And the dithering Democrat appears to want to vote “present”.
David Quigg at Huffington Post (hat tip Patterico and Missy):
It fundamentally harms the long-term cause of global peace if America permits itself to move through history in a remorseless, irresponsible cycle wherein a Bush-type leader launches reckless wars and an Obama-type leader yanks our troops out. No matter how much we want our troops home, it is immoral to throw a country into chaos and then walk away simply because we grow weary of that chaos.
Counterinsurgency — the broad, innovative, flexible portfolio of tactics aimed at keeping civilians safe and earning their trust and cooperation — offers the best hope I’ve seen for attempting to make things right in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, foreign fighters, emboldened by America’s self-doubt and leadership dithering, are pouring into Afghanistan with a surge of their own, to push the perceived Taliban momentum. By ratcheting up the violence, they hope to influence Washington and American public perception to their favor.
Last weekend, two military outposts came under siege, resulting in the deaths of 8 U.S. soldiers, 7 Afghan soldiers.
The U.S. military destroyed both Camp Keating and Camp Fritsche 4 days later (56 soldiers who evacuated from there apparently lost everything except the clothes on their backs), giving the Taliban a victory claim (nevermind their loss of 100 Taliban fighters in the same battle), along with the symbolic raising of their flag in the region.
Part of General McChrystal’s plan, however, is the withdrawal of U.S. forces from such remote outposts to concentrate upon population centers where the people are the prize. A counterterrorism campaign as opposed to counterinsurgency, runs the risk of alienating the Afghan people back into the abusive arms of the Taliban:
Another Taliban member says they benefited from American violence and the abuses of the Kabul government:
The Afghan Taliban were weak and disorganized. But slowly the situation began to change. American operations that harassed villagers, bombings that killed civilians, and Karzai’s corrupt police were alienating villagers and turning them in our favor. Soon we didn’t have to hide so much on our raids. We came openly. When they saw us, villagers started preparing green tea and food for us. The tables were turning. Karzai’s police and officials mostly hid in their district compounds like prisoners.
So the Taliban’s loss of 100 militants to take over outposts we were going to be leaving anyway, is a great victory only in their brain-addled minds.
Thomas Ricks posts an account- the most detailed one we have thus far- by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey of last weekend’s battle in Nuristan:
Here are the facts, without revealing sensitive information. I feel compelled to write this because I heard some very fine, brave Americans foght for their very lives Saturday, 03 OCT 09. They fought magnificently.
Read the rest of this entry »
Would that “win” us a “watered down” (re: semblance of) victory?
It sounds like President Obama might be looking to have it both ways on Afghanistan.
Remember when President Bush was slammed for not listening to his generals (or more accurately, the ones political opponents could agree with)? Remember when Senator Obama parroted the same (Hat tip: Mike’s America):
Obama said that while President Bush has said that he follows the advice of his generals regarding Iraq, when they give the president advice he doesn’t like — cautioning against the War in Iraq, for example — Bush doesn’t listen to them.
“There were generals at the beginning of the conflict that said this is going to require many more troops, will cost us much more … those generals were pushed aside,” Obama said.
Although I do believe that listening to military officials should not automatically lead civilian leaders to carry out their suggestions, I worry whether or not President Obama has the right instincts, the right mindset, the right advisers to make the best possible strategic decision:
Read the rest of this entry »
To the other authors who have done a stellar job of remembrance today, I say thank you. It was a somber walk thru those times, and a moving memorial.
Yet on this day mourning the loss of loved ones, revisiting the vunerability we felt, and even the anger that still lives in many of us, there is a spot of good news that may give you a small smile.
For the second year running, top jihad sites affiliated with Al Qaeda have mysteriously started exhibiting “technical problems” on the eve of 911, forcing the militants to shut down and lose their cyberspace presence.
A U.S.-based group monitoring militant Web sites said Friday that jihadist forums have been experiencing technical problems on the eve of Sept. 11, finally going offline a day before the 8th anniversary of the al-Qaida attack on the U.S.
The SITE Intelligence Group said the same thing happened last year, promoting consternation in militant circles.
“As happened last year … top jihadist forums affiliated with al-Qaida began experiencing technical problems, culminating in their ultimate closure on September 10, 2009,” the group said in a statement.
According to SITE, members of other jihadist forums expressed annoyance and “confusion” at the inability to access the Web sites and forums where they share updates and messages.
Couldn’t have happened to a lower class of humans…
I sure don’t know who the masked cyber crusader is, and no one is taking public credit for the second anniversary of jihad internet chaos. But this is one hacker to whom I sure would like to say, *thank you!*
History-like hindsight-is supposed to be 20:20, but the deliberate partisan, political divide regarding the invasion of Iraq makes that hard.
It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.
Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding. Read the rest of this entry »
You are currently browsing the archives for the counterinsurgency category.
There are currently 79,374 comments.
Oct - 3,057
