A lot of hand-wringing has taken place regarding General McChrystal's controversial comments regarding policy in Afghanistan. I'll take the uncontroversial view that being governed by a military junta might not be a good thing as Eugene Robinson explains:

How to proceed in Afghanistan will be among the most difficult and fateful decisions that President Obama ever makes. But he's the one who has to decide, not his generals. The men with the stars on their shoulders -- and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service -- need to shut up and salute.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is entitled to his opinion about the best way forward. But he has no business conducting a public campaign to build support for his preferred option, which is to send tens of thousands more troops into a country once called the "graveyard of empires."

Some folks on the left say that the top general in Afghanistan only sees things through his "own narrow experience", which probably means another General Betrayus type ad from Moveon.org is coming soon to a newspaper near you. But taking the position that elected leaders should be responsible over the military does not categorically place you with the Code Pink crowd. However, in any chain-of-command, you hope and pray that those appointed over you are competent, have their priorities straight, and have your interests at heart. And, the President devoting his time and political capital to the 2016 Olympics, command-and-control economics, and not to the rapidly worsening Afghanistan situation doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Read more »

You know public opinion of the war in Afghanistan is reaching epic lows when you've got General Petraeus writing Op-Eds for British papers...but that seems to be where we are at. From The Times:

General Stan McChrystal, the Commander of Nato’s International Security Assistance Force, who has spent most of his career since 9/11 leading the US’s most elite counterterrorist element, the Joint Special Operations Command, is employing a comprehensive, counterinsurgency campaign. He is the first to recognise not just the extraordinary capabilities but also the limitations of counterterrorism forces in Afghanistan...
...If Cecil Rhodes was correct in his wonderful observation that “being an Englishman is the greatest prize in the lottery of life”, and I’m inclined to think that he was, then the second greatest prize in the lottery of life must be to be a friend of an Englishman, and based on that, the more than 230,000 men and women in uniform who work with your country’s finest day by day are very lucky indeed, as am I.

Damn, he even spelled recognize with an "s" to try and keep the Brits in the game. With NATO allies looking to pull out, you have to wonder if society has the will to combat extremism half way around the world while domestic economies are still in the toilet.

Read more »

In a piece that is certain to stir up some controversy today, conservative heavyweight George Will questions what the hell we are still doing in Afghanistan. This follows the month with the most casualties during the 8-year war with no end in sight. From George Will:

U.S. strategy — protecting the population — is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about “deteriorating” (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

U.S. strategy is “clear, hold and build.” Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country — “control” is an elastic concept — and “ ‘our’ Afghans may prove no more viable than were ‘our’ Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.”

I really don't have much to criticize George Will for on this. His arguments are based on facts and our lack of clear objectives, but maybe General McChrystal come up with a more suitable strategy with his recent report to CENTCOM and the Pentagon. I don't pretend that I have some master plan, but at least the guy who is supposed to has a good-looking set of pants.

Read more »

Way back in the "Surge" days (2007-2008), we used to do this type of "media assessment" of news coverage of Iraq, but it was mostly for situational awareness for the brass and PAO types, and wasn't meant to ban embeds. From Stars & Stripes:

Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company.

“We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography,” said Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a public affairs officer with U.S. Forces Afghanistan in Kabul. “It’s so we know with whom we’re working.”

U.S. Army officials in Iraq engaged in a similar vetting practice two months ago, when they barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division because the reporter “refused to highlight” good news that military commanders wanted to emphasize.

While senior leadership in the military want the press to write great stories about how everything is going swell, the same leaders generally understand there's something called the first amendment, and the military is obligated as a public organization to provide truthful information. If this type of vetting had anything to do with Michael Yon getting his embed canceled, someone's really fucking up. Maybe J is onto something?

Read more »

pic from NYT

This certainly isn't what you want to hear from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but Admiral Mullen is not known to have a penchant for bullshit. From NYT:

The assessments come as the top American commander in the country, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has been working to complete a major war strategy review, and as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, described a worsening situation in Afghanistan despite the recent addition of 17,000 American troops ordered by the Obama administration and the extra security efforts surrounding the presidential election.

“I think it is serious and it is deteriorating,” Admiral Mullen said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “The Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated, in their tactics.” He added that General McChrystal was still completing his review and had not yet requested additional troops on top of the those added by Mr. Obama.

With logistics problems due to the country still being stuck in the 8th century, as well as a government that is barely functional outside of Kabul, we might be asking a bit much from our military to completely rebuild a society that was never much in the first place. Admiral Mullen's statements might be a prelude to throwing in the towel...

Read more »

Wired Danger Room is on an embed in the Panjshir Valley in Afghanistan and they note the poo-pooing by NGO types of the PRT in carrying out civil-military operations:

Not everyone is fan of the military’s embrace of the humanitarian mission. Since their inception in late 2002 as “Joint Regional Teams,” many in the aid and development community have worried that the PRTs were encroaching on a traditional humanitarian space, blurring the line between civilian aid work and military operations. In a recent opinion piece, Anna Husarska of the International Rescue Committee quotes an unnamed colleague who tut-tutted that the PRTs are “Humvees in a china shop.” For the purists, relief and development work are a task best done by independent aid agencies, not the military.

This isn't the first time that humanitarians have bad-mouthed this entire component of counter-insurgency. As a guy who used to be in the military but is now a tie-dye wearin' NGO geek, I feel the need to comment. Yes, showing up with an assortment of weapons might not be the key to convincing folks you are there to help, but it is incredibly naive to not understand that security and the rule of law must be established before any real social/economic development takes place in troubled areas. That's why the 2007 strategy in Iraq was successful, because it primarily focused on improving security, instead having contractors half-assedly building schools that were going to get blown up anyways.

There is/will be a need for humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, but until law and order can be established, it will have to have a military component. Don't let idealism result in you getting killed by reality.

Read more »

Huh. Didn't really see that one coming. It wasn't like when that jackass Admiral Fallon got shit-canned after a controversial Esquire article proved his douchery. But, the senior commander in Afghanistan has been relieved of his duties by SECDEF Gates. WaPo quotes anonymous senior officers saying he did his best with the bag of dicks known as Operation Enduring Freedom:

Sympathy ran high for McKiernan among Army officers because, they said, the relative shortage of U.S. troops in Afghanistan had tied his hands in combating a deepening insurgency.

McKiernan "was running a very under-resourced theater and doing as well as anyone could expect," said one senior officer. This officer and others would discuss their views only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the record.

Afghanistan vet Old Blue pays his respect as well. At least no one can say that senior officers aren't held accountable when the shit hits the fan.

Read more »

Not only does he have decent music in a world of douche-scarf'd pop rock, but he does a lot of USO shows. Usually these are on the mega-fobs due to the logistical challenges and threat levels preventing the entertainers from going to the more spartan outposts. But Toby Keith recently went to Vampire 06's FOB near the Af-Pak border. Read the whole story here.

Read more »

Finally. Instead of dicking around with the zombie banks that were shrewd enough to pump money into campaign coffers, the President has announced a revised strategy for fighting the war in Afghanistan. NYT has some of the highlights:

• 17,000 additional combat troops
• 4,000 troops for security transition (training/advisor forces)
• Conditions-based economic and military aid to Pakistan
• Request for $50B in budget plan
• Development of "benchmarks" for governments in Kabul and Islamabad

David Brooks writes from a byline in the Kyber Pass that this thing is "winnable". Milbloggers such as Old Blue and the Greyhawks seem supportive of the new strategy as well. Jon Soltz states that the strategy encompasses the proper mix of addressing regional issues and focusing on law and order for the fledgeling government in Kabul.

While I'm deeply immersed in the culture of the bitters, laughing at Obama teleprompter jokes and such, I certainly hope that this ambitious plan is successful. It's our republic, and allowing Afghanistan/Pakistan to fall under control of extremism would prove catastrophic to global security.

Read more »

Despite the extra-chintzy title of this blog post, VAMPIRE 06 has a detailed piece on counter-insurgency principles being applied near the Pakistan border that is a must read. At a time when Iraq seems to be calming down (especially with the implementation of tour group packages for Western tourists) and the winter lull in A-stan is ending, it's important to understand what our troops are accomplishing in OEF.

Read more »

As you can see above from the Gallup poll, 65% of Americans approve of Obama's strategy in Afghanistan of plussing up the boots on ground by about 17K. This along with military cooperation with Pakistan and improved intelligence sharing is certainly a good start. With Pakistan's government cutting deals with the Tehrik-i-Taliban, an aggressive policy is needed sooner rather than later for a spring that could be ugly. Ironically, more Republicans support the President's foreign policy strategy than Democrats, which goes to show that most conservatives aren't morans who want Obama to fail. Failure in Afghanistan means more of our troops and allies getting killed and reverting back to a radical Islamic state to breed terrorists. Who the fuck wants that? So, in that case, yeah, I support the Commander-in-Chief. I suspect most conservatives who rail against Obama think the stimulus bill is a big pile of dog shit rather than his foreign policy, and polling supports that hypothesis.

Read more »

Donkey transports through mountain passes might be what our troops are stuck with as troubling news comes out of Operation Enduring Freedom. The Paki Taliban destroyed a bridge used by NATO supply convoys in the Khyber Agency, closing the Pak-Afghan highway again. Also, the Kyrgyzstan air base at Manas has been shut down due to meddling by Putin. Hot Air explains:

Just two weeks after supposedly agreeing to expand supply lines into Afghanistan, Russia cut one of the more important supply lines available to NATO. Vladimir Putin gave Kyrgyzstan over $2 billion, and the Central Asian country not-so-coincidentally booted the US from their air base.

This will require some robust strategic and diplomatic solutions from our Commander-in-Chief, but he seems to be getting way too bogged down with federal interference in the economy to maintain standards of living that no one could afford in the first place. The problem with democracy is that people expect the President to be like the tooth fairy bringing them free goodies instead of a leader.

Read more »

Brandon Friedman (A-stan vet) has some sharp analysis on why we need more troops in Afghanistan that's worth a read. Other COIN luminaries have called for more troops in Afghanistan, and the President has as well. I agree, but there still needs to be a larger active-duty force, which has been pretty steady since 9/11 to prevent morale/readiness problems. But at least it looks like things are going okay in Iraq. Ramblings from a Painter (works at the new embassy in Baghdad) has the scoop on the Provincial Elections scheduled for Saturday:

With over 14,400 candidates vying for 440 council seats, there are a lot of people looking for air time for their messages. I was watching an Iraqi channel on TV a little while ago and saw non-stop political ads. I mean non-stop: there wasn't any scheduled programming! Just ads for this candidate or that, with a bunch of "rock-the-vote" style ads in between.

If "too many candidates" is the biggest problem facing Iraqi elections, I'd wager that's pretty good. This is in comparison to 2005 where the Sunnis all boycotted and violence went through the roof. Sure, Iraq still has a lot of problems with poverty, refugees, and corruption, but as far as our military is concerned..."Mission Accomplished". Yeah, I said it, and I'm not even wearing a flight suit with a cod piece. Hopefully our forces can leave Iraq without a lot of problems, because the writing is on the wall that Afghanistan is ramping up.

Read more »

The Taliban Must Have Taken a Playbook From Baghdad Bob

One of the most accurate facts in our confusing, modern conflicts of counter-insurgencies is details on U.S. and ISAF forces KIA. The U.S. releases the name and location of every KIA after the family has been notified, and our NATO allies use a similar methodology. iCasualties counts 294 in 2008, but that didn't stop the Taliban from dishing out what the AP calls a "whopper" of 5,220 troops killed in 2008:

The Taliban has long exaggerated its military successes, but its figures for 2008 may be the militia's most startling claims yet.

The Taliban claims its forces last year killed 5,220 foreign troops, downed 31 aircraft, destroyed 2,818 NATO and Afghan vehicles and killed 7,552 Afghan soldiers and police.

And they even get into their tactical successes, which would be hard to confirm since they use the "fight n' flee" method:

A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, stood by the militia's numbers in a telephone interview Monday, saying that its fighters film every operation and verify the tolls.

"The numbers I have given to you, that is counted one by one," he said. "When we say there are 2,818 vehicles destroyed, that is a correct number. Why aren't we saying 2,820? Because we have reports of 2,818."

Well, I guess if Zabiullah Mujahid said it's exactly 2,818 vehicles, then it's gotta be true!

It should be noted that the enemy has fudged their numbers extravagantly in the past, as the Iraqi insurgent groups use to claim that tens of thousands of U.S. troops had been killed by them.

Read more »

e.g., the Indian Embassy bombings in Kabul did little to outrage the Middle East

The Israelis are striking Gaza for a second day, and protesters from across the Arab world are lining up with a vengeance. From Tehran to London, the usual ruckus of anti-Zionist rhetoric can be heard loud and clear. Like the fat woman at a club, this blog steers clear of taking an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, since a small strip of land with few resources in which three major religions lay claim might prove troublesome for discussion. But the Middle Eastern outrage at Israel, has failed to materialize as terrorists murder their own fellow Muslims (with the exception of Iraqis).

Recently, 14 schoolchildren were murdered by a suicide bomber in Khost, Afghanistan. The grisly video of the attack can be viewed here. Are there going to be imams in Saudi Arabia and protesters in Cairo gathering to condemn this atrocity? Highly doubtful. IraqPundit has some sharp insight on why this is the norm in a post entitled "Right Civilians, Wrong Civilians":

Arabs are ready to protest when the U.S. does something wrong (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo). Arabs are ready to protest when civlians get killed by the U.S. or Israel. But rarely if ever do they protest when some hate-filled extremists kill civilians. I'm talking about Iraqi civilians. I don't recall huge demonstrations against the suicide bombers and other extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of most civilians.

The Arab Street accepts the extremists as noble fighters. They see them as decent fellows who had no choice but to turn violent in the face of injustice. And because they are noble fighters, people forgive them when they kill civilians. On Friday a Hamas rocket killed two Palestinians kids. Poor children didn't know they were the wrong kind of civilians.

That's the injured Palestinians' problem. They're the wrong kind of civilians. This Arabic report says Hamas admits that they are preventing injured from going to Egypt for treatment. The principled Hamas leaders say it's not fair of Egypt to open Rafah crossing just for the injured, they should open it for fighters and smugglers as well. Too bad for the injured, they must be sacrificed for the cause.

The frustrated Arab Street is angry that their voices are ignored. I agree they have much to protest about when it comes to their nasty regimes. People have every right to be angry about Abu Ghraib, etc. But perhaps if the Street objected to the killings of all civilians, more people would listen.

The fact that much of the world's Islamic community forgoes condemning terrorism and accepts them as "freedom fighters" represents, in some ways, a strategic communications failure on America's part. When people in the Middle East still overwhelmingly believe that the U.S. or Israel was behind 9/11, it is obvious that we are not succeeding in enabling moderate messengers in troubled regions rife with terrorist activity. This will be a serious diplomatic challenge for the incoming Obama administration, and I hope he doesn't shrug off this key component of our current efforts to curb terrorism.

Read more »

For some damn reason Jane Fonda, the traitorous swine, was all up in my gmail account, yapping about how great Code Pink was an anti-war organization:

Dear LT,
As an actor, I know the power of the screen. As an activist, I also know the power of taking a message off the screen and onto the streets. That's why I love CODEPINK--it not only utilizes the best of the visual media with its vibrant pink presence; the women of CODEPINK are also out in the world...

Apparently old hippies never die, they just get senile and spread their messages through the internet rather than half-baked drum sessions. But unlike Vietnam, the beginning of operations in Afghanistan were hardly controversial in 2001. The Taliban, a despicable regime, was harboring terrorists that perpetrated one of the greatest atrocities in American history. The authorization for the use of military force did not take long to pass in DC. But as Iraq winds down, and people look for ways to divert money from defense for the sake of keeping people on the public dole, expect opposition to Afghanistan to begin ramping up.

In some cases, leaders of large progressive policy groups don't even bother trying to rationalize why the war must have an end...not even a catchy tune that you can slap on a protest sign. They just say we need to give money to irresponsible citizens who splurged on McMansions. From Huffington Post:

With housing prices continuing to plummet, not helping them means the financial system is being buttressed on top of a time bomb...But perhaps we'd be wiser to leave bin Laden in his cave, abandon the entire wrong-headed misnomer of a "war on terror," and give up attempting to build a new democracy in a country on the other side of the world. Make aggressive global policing, intelligence sharing, and a crackdown on financial flows the core of our reaction to bin Laden, and focus our resources and attention on the crisis here at home, which remains truly terrifying to anyone who looks at it closely.

The mission in Afghanistan does not provide a direct paycheck into people's pocket, so as the public gets more desperate to go back to their excessive living of SUVs, reality TV, and subprime mortgages, they are going to be easily swayed by politicians making promises. Maybe the next administration will do the right thing and look for new tactics and diplomacy to put the mission back on track, but the American people are going to be bitching every step of the way during these hard times. The college protesters, progressive bloggers, and other layabouts who speak the loudest for the anti-war movement will be making a lot more sense to more and more Americans.

Read more »

The Talking Point du jour seems to be that we need to "negotiate" with the Taliban to supervise a "peaceful" exit. This goes beyond the stabilization operations of talking with the little "t" Taliban that Gen. McKiernan emphasizes, and has more to do with freeing up more revenue to fund domestic social programs (those votes aren't bought for cheap). But, Sarah Chayes, who runs a co-op out in Kandahar, notes that this would be a lousy idea. She's been there for 7 years, so I'm guessing she knows more about the situation than the rest of us. A snippet from yesterday's WaPo:

We and our friends in Kandahar are thunderstruck at recent suggestions that the solution to the hair-raising situation in this country must include a political settlement with "relevant parties" -- read, the Taliban. Negotiating with them wouldn't solve Afghanistan's problems; it would only exacerbate them. Ask any Afghan what's really needed, what would render the Taliban irrelevant, and they'll tell you: improving the behavior of the officials whom the United States and its allies ushered into power after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

For some further insight into Afghanistan, I recommend Troy's blog and Old Blue's blog (both have combat experience in that forgotten part of the world). For everyone who wants to just give up and see Afghanistan become another failed state, I can only offer you this classic line from They Live:

Anyone got a master plan?

Read more »