Secretary Gates Blames NATO For Rising Afghan Violence

In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview.

Keep reading.

Comments

[AtomicSplash]

So this pretty much settles it. George bush isn't going to take personal responsibility for anything he is responsible for during his administration.

[HumeSkeptic]

"Former marine Captain Nathaniel Fick, a seasoned veteran of the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, highlighted in an August 12 Washington Post op-ed what he called "the paradoxical world of counterinsurgency warfare - the kind of war you win without shooting".

Those now backing on a "surge" of marine manpower to hunt Taliban appear to have forgotten what he reminds us: "The laws of these campaigns seem topsy-turvy by conventional military standards: money is more decisive than bullets; protecting our own forces undermines the US mission; heavy firepower is counterproductive; and winning battles guarantees nothing."

Today these four basic principals of counter-insurgency, based on army and marine doctrine, are taught to Afghan security forces at the Afghanistan Counter-insurgency Academy in Kabul. However, it is the marines themselves who have courted controversy in the country for being too heavy-handed.

Last March, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, the former top US commander, expelled a marine special operations company after their convoy was ambushed and they went on a "rampage" in Nangarhar province that left 12 civilians dead, including an infant and three elderly men, according to a report by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. One man was said to be so riddled with bullets that he could not be identified.

"In failing to distinguish between civilians and legitimate military targets, the US Marine Corps special forces employed indiscriminate force," the report said. "Their actions thus constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian standards."
...

From: The 'war on terror' moves East
By Jason Motlag and Jim Lobe, atimes.com

http://www.worldpress.org/link.cfm?http://www.atimes.com/
----------------------

It seems to me that Marines are more part of the problem in Afghqanistan than part of the solution.

[cblcar]

Can we possibly get rid of this inept administration soon enough?

[JoJoKewl]

Doofus Dubya has called Iraq the central front in the warrenterra. According to some experts, al Qaida considers the Afghan/Pakistan border the central front and Iraq is a sideshow. al Qaida is Sunni and Iraq is 60% Shia and 20% Kurd and they don't like al Qaida. They can't lose in Iraq - they're draining us of blood and treasure and if they're driven out they won't give a damn. They want to regain Afghan and grow in Pakistan. And so far they're doing pretty good.

[S1m0n]

We'll happily pull back if you want to do it Right, Mr Gates. However, we're only there in the first place because you started something you couldn't finish.

[devilyousay]

Canadians are tired of watching Canadian troops lose lives in the most vicious fighting in Afghanistan (Kandahar province). Most of us aren't sure why we're there propping up a war started by an American invasion, starved of financing by an American senate who diverted all subsequent rebuilding funds to a war in Iraq and fighting troops that were actually trained by Americans to fight the Soviets.

Let the American troops go to Kandahar and we can bring our brave men and women home.

So tell me, how many more friendships will an American government piss all over? I don't think there are too many left, are there?

Coalition of the willing? Whatever...

[JoJoKewl]

Lessee - if we'd put a major force into Afghanistan instead of Iraq - ah hell, what's the use?

[watchingthings]

Sure it's NATO's fault. It can't be his administration's fault. The fact that they didn't finish off the Taliban when they had them on the run has nothing to do with it. Bush had oil to steal. Afganistan had none. A bunch of Bullshit and wham! Iraqi livelihood along with their country destroyed. Gates should be ashamed of himself.

[GrouchoMarxist]

This is like Bill Gates blaming Apple because Vista blows.

[lungfish]

The whole purpose, the entire purpose for invading Afghanistan was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not to depose the Taliban or install democracy.

Nobody, not Gates, not anyone is even mentioning Osama so now we are in a rudderless war. No direction. Nobody in the administration can tell us why we are there in the context of why we went there.

In other words, we should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately and learn what the rest of the world already knows. History has demonstrated that invading and occupying Afghanistan is not possible.

Who cares about the Taliban? Afghanistan wanted it that way, the Russians pulled out and Afghanistan fell into a civil war and the Taliban came out on top. The CIA didn't give a shit, America didn't give a shit once the Russians were gone. Until we suspected that OBL was there, we didn't give a tinkers damn.

And we failed to catch him and it is suspected by both the Israeli and US intelligence services that he died in Dec 2001. Bush and Co have said repeatedly that he isn't a priority... so what the fuck are we doing in Afghanistan?

[HumeSkeptic]

The 'war on terror' moves East

Jason Motlagh and Jim Lobe
atimes.com

The Pentagon is sending 3,200 marines to Afghanistan to help quell the upsurge in insurgent violence in the Pashtun-dominated southern and eastern provinces. The move is not without flaws and detractors in Afghanistan, where atrocities committed by marines are still fresh in the minds of many. Meanwhile, the US's decision to send 18 F-16 warplanes to neighboring Pakistan highlights the George W Bush administration's "skewed" approach to Islamabad.

...

"Instead of punishing the Taliban, Western military technology has often backfired to strengthen their cause. Errant air strikes have killed hundreds of civilians and poisoned public faith in a weak central government. The Taliban, meanwhile, never miss a chance to capitalize on the mistakes of the foreign powers they frame as occupiers."

...
This failure is not lost on those who have spent time in the Afghan badlands. Former marine Captain Nathaniel Fick, a seasoned veteran of the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, highlighted in an August 12 Washington Post op-ed what he called "the paradoxical world of counterinsurgency warfare - the kind of war you win without shooting".

Those now backing on a "surge" of marine manpower to hunt Taliban appear to have forgotten what he reminds us: "The laws of these campaigns seem topsy-turvy by conventional military standards: money is more decisive than bullets; protecting our own forces undermines the US mission; heavy firepower is counterproductive; and winning battles guarantees nothing."
...

---------------------

It seems what is needed in Afghanistan to neutralize the Taliban is diplomacy and economic aid, combined with some force, not brute force.

[gotalife]

How many troops did Russia have there and lost?

Obama: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn't

Oh man, this guy is gop. No wonder he wants unity to vote with the gop.

Your candidate is gop HP.

Geez.

[CaliforniaMike]

Other than intentional efforts to sabotage things and make it look like government doesn't work, at which they have been very good, can anybody name even ONE thing the Bush administration has done well?

[jackpinesavage]

That article is about the most blatant piece of BS propaganda for the home audience i've ever read.

US forces are mostly positioned in the Eastern portion of the country...surprise, next to Iran. While NATO forces are positioned in the Southern portion of the country, traditionally the hot bed of the Taliban because its proximity to Pakistan's tribal areas...and probably ISI supply lines.

NATO is accused of not patrolling enough, how come they aren't more than happy to get their asses shot off? We gave them the more difficult job so that we wouldn't have to do it, and so our troops would be in position for Iran. Whatever, Gates.

And that story about the former rep. (Siljander) supporting Hekmatyar, and by association al-Queda and the Taliban has holes big enough to drive a truck through. Hekmatyar hates the Taliban. They took all his troops when the ISI shifted its support to Mullah Omar, who got what Hekmatyar thought was his.

[ripples]

We been fighten guys in sneakers and pkups for 5 years in iraq and still dont have a grip on things..much the same in afghan..the problem ain't nato, the problem is trying to nation build with bullets and bombs..it don't make the natives too happy