Obama considers new Afghanistan strategy

[Moonlight Graham]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/29/a...o-obama029.html

U.S. President Barack Obama met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Tuesday to talk about a possible new strategy in Afghanistan amid calls for more allied troops in the war-torn country.

Speaking to reporters in Washington after the meeting at the White House, Rasmussen said European leaders are studying a report presented by the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, last week. His report included a call for an additional 40,000 combat troops.

However, Rasmussen added, allied leaders must determine a strategy before allocating more resources. "The first thing is not numbers," he said.

Added Obama: "We both agree that it is absolutely critical that we are successful in dismantling, disrupting and destroying the al-Qaeda network."

Somebody in power has finally figured out that the strategy of the last 8 years in Afghanistan hasn't worked. They don't need a new strategy, what they need is an entirely new philosophy in that region.

I doubt though that Obama will do anything other than "send more troops". It's amazing to me how Obama and NATO seem to have been walking around dazed over the past year, as they have no idea what exactly they doing.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt though that Obama will do anything other than "send more troops". It's amazing to me how Obama and NATO seem to have been walking around dazed over the past year, as they have no idea what exactly they doing.

What else did you expect? Obama campaigned on just such a strategy, trying to leverage disdain for the Bush/Iraq "diversion". Canada's 2011 decision helps to guarantee such a move, which reduces numbers before any strategy considerations.

Edited September 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

White House eyeing narrower Afghan war effort

Top officials challenge General McChrystal's assessment

One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, "A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day."

Among them, according to three senior administration officials who attended the meeting, is McChrystal's contention that the Taliban and al-Qaeda share the same strategic interests and that the return to power of the Taliban would automatically mean a new sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Ok, let me dumb it down for some of you... this means they are recommending the option of allowing the taliban back to political power, presumably as part of the shiny new illegitimate (but democratic!) government of Afghanistan.

Eliminate the Taliban? We will not negotiate with Taliban?

Never mind

[Shady]

this means they are recommending the option of allowing the taliban back to political power

No they're not going to allow the Taliban back in political power.

[BubberMiley]

No they're not going to allow the Taliban back in political power.

Because in most of the country, the Taliban never left power.

[M.Dancer]

Because in most of the country, the Taliban never left power.

By most, you mean 1/5th.

[Sir Bandelot]

No they're not going to allow the Taliban back in political power.

From what I can ascertain, McCrystal is recommending that if they are to win this war according to the current mission objectives, a "surge" is necessary to defeat the Taliban. Without this, the mission is lost . He recommends either the full surge, or not at all. No half-measures.

These other guys are criticizing him, as the article states " a lot of assumptions were exposed to the light of day" in his report. And the one that they specifically highlighted, is that McCrystal is incorrect in his assertion that a return to power of the Taliban also means a return of Al-Qaeda. They are defending the Taliban... or at least seem to be advocating that it would be alright for the Taliban to be in power again.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[The Moderate Man]

Well, the entire country is a mess, isn't it? Karzai only controls the capital, and even he is suspect for various reasons, including his previous employment with a US oil company, accusations of corruption and the claim that he has returned to power in the latest election via fraud.

Then you've got the Taliban, who are going into guerrilla mode (something they perfected during the Soviet-Afghan War when they were receiving American support and military aid, as well as the assistance of the Pakistani intelligence community). Those Taliban are tenacious, and who knows if they will ever give up the fight; chances are, they won't, and they seem to be gaining strength and support the longer the U.S. remains in the country as more and more Afghans get fed up with the foreign occupation.

Then there are the warlords who are supporting Karzai and the U.S. occupation because it is politically useful to them. They don't exactly have sterling records on human rights, democracy or . . . well, any of the things that matter when it comes to the well-being of the Afghan people. Take the Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who was recently removed from his position as Chief of Staff in the Afghan Army due to allegations that his fighters broke into the home of one his his rivals, beat him and his family and shot one of their bodyguards (incidentally, he's not being charged due to 'the political situation', which would 'make things difficult'). He was previously known for his readiness to change allegiances (he fought for the Soviet-backed government in the late 1970s and through the 1980s, before switching to the mujahideen when they appeared likely to win) and his ruthlessness towards his enemies, which included tying men to tank treads and crushing them to death, as well as setting men on fire or drowning them; the list probably goes on. This all brings to mind an Afghan saying that 'Uzbek mercy is worse than Pashtun revenge'. The Western media haven't really remarked on his atrocities (not that they have reported much on him at all) because they are par for the course among Afghan warlords. Indeed, Dostum is regarded as a progressive, relatively speaking; he thinks that women should be allowed to go outside without covering their faces, that alcohol should be legal and that foreign films should be available to Afghans (policies he carried out when he controlled northern Afghanistan prior to the Taliban takeover). He is now regarded as the leader of the significant Uzbek community in Afghanistan.

As far as I can see, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan has only exacerbated the situation. As I've said, the Taliban seem to gain support when they can point to the U.S. presence; people are inclined to forget the Taliban's own atrocities in power when they seem to be the only force that can challenge the American occupation. One could also question whether the U.S. should have invaded Afghanistan in the first place, as negotiations with the Afghan government were cut off prematurely; had a little more time been given, the Taliban may have agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden and other members of the al-Qaeda leadership accused by the American government of plotting the 9-11 attacks. Indeed, it was known that the only member of the Taliban leadership who had not yet agreed to this was Mullah Omar, but he could probably have been persuaded; all he wanted was to see the evidence of bin Laden's guilt, which apparently was an insult to the United States because he failed to comply with their demands immediately and unquestioningly.

I would love to see a credible non-U.S.-backed, non-Taliban political force with a popular base emerge in Afghanistan, as I think that this would be the best chance the Afghan people have for bettering their lives. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, no such force has yet emerged, and who knows when it will (if it does at all). The entire affair is a quagmire for the U.S., which I suppose might as well withdraw ASAP; for the Afghan people, it's just destitution as usual.

[weareone]

Well, the entire country is a mess, isn't it? Karzai only controls the capital, and even he is suspect for various reasons, including his previous employment with a US oil company, accusations of corruption and the claim that he has returned to power in the latest election via fraud.

Then you've got the Taliban, who are going into guerrilla mode (something they perfected during the Soviet-Afghan War when they were receiving American support and military aid, as well as the assistance of the Pakistani intelligence community). Those Taliban are tenacious, and who knows if they will ever give up the fight; chances are, they won't, and they seem to be gaining strength and support the longer the U.S. remains in the country as more and more Afghans get fed up with the foreign occupation.

Then there are the warlords who are supporting Karzai and the U.S. occupation because it is politically useful to them. They don't exactly have sterling records on human rights, democracy or . . . well, any of the things that matter when it comes to the well-being of the Afghan people. Take the Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who was recently removed from his position as Chief of Staff in the Afghan Army due to allegations that his fighters broke into the home of one his his rivals, beat him and his family and shot one of their bodyguards (incidentally, he's not being charged due to 'the political situation', which would 'make things difficult'). He was previously known for his readiness to change allegiances (he fought for the Soviet-backed government in the late 1970s and through the 1980s, before switching to the mujahideen when they appeared likely to win) and his ruthlessness towards his enemies, which included tying men to tank treads and crushing them to death, as well as setting men on fire or drowning them; the list probably goes on. This all brings to mind an Afghan saying that 'Uzbek mercy is worse than Pashtun revenge'. The Western media haven't really remarked on his atrocities (not that they have reported much on him at all) because they are par for the course among Afghan warlords. Indeed, Dostum is regarded as a progressive, relatively speaking; he thinks that women should be allowed to go outside without covering their faces, that alcohol should be legal and that foreign films should be available to Afghans (policies he carried out when he controlled northern Afghanistan prior to the Taliban takeover). He is now regarded as the leader of the significant Uzbek community in Afghanistan.

As far as I can see, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan has only exacerbated the situation. As I've said, the Taliban seem to gain support when they can point to the U.S. presence; people are inclined to forget the Taliban's own atrocities in power when they seem to be the only force that can challenge the American occupation. One could also question whether the U.S. should have invaded Afghanistan in the first place, as negotiations with the Afghan government were cut off prematurely; had a little more time been given, the Taliban may have agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden and other members of the al-Qaeda leadership accused by the American government of plotting the 9-11 attacks. Indeed, it was known that the only member of the Taliban leadership who had not yet agreed to this was Mullah Omar, but he could probably have been persuaded; all he wanted was to see the evidence of bin Laden's guilt, which apparently was an insult to the United States because he failed to comply with their demands immediately and unquestioningly.

I would love to see a credible non-U.S.-backed, non-Taliban political force with a popular base emerge in Afghanistan, as I think that this would be the best chance the Afghan people have for bettering their lives. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, no such force has yet emerged, and who knows when it will (if it does at all). The entire affair is a quagmire for the U.S., which I suppose might as well withdraw ASAP; for the Afghan people, it's just destitution as usual.

[weareone]

The problem I have is that the French could not win in Vietnam and the US still went in, the Russians couldnot win in Afghanistan, and the US still went in. There must be another way.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem I have is that the French could not win in Vietnam and the US still went in, the Russians couldnot win in Afghanistan, and the US still went in. There must be another way.

Well, using that approach for WWI, the UK, France, Canada, and many others couldn't win, but the US still went in.

[weareone]

White House eyeing narrower Afghan war effort

Top officials challenge General McChrystal's assessment

One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, "A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day."

Among them, according to three senior administration officials who attended the meeting, is McChrystal's contention that the Taliban and al-Qaeda share the same strategic interests and that the return to power of the Taliban would automatically mean a new sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Ok, let me dumb it down for some of you... this means they are recommending the option of allowing the taliban back to political power, presumably as part of the shiny new illegitimate (but democratic!) government of Afghanistan.

Eliminate the Taliban? We will not negotiate with Taliban?

Never mind

Good thinking. Russia could not beat them.

Getting late here.