Richard Holbrooke: Afghanistan Will Be "Much Tougher Than Iraq"

MUNICH, Feb. 8 -- President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan, with one member calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq" and others hinting that it could take years to turn around.

U.S. officials said more troops were urgently needed, both from the United States and its NATO allies, to counter the increasing strength of the Taliban and other warlords opposed to the central government in Kabul. But they also said new approaches were needed to untangle an inefficient and conflicting array of civilian-aid programs that have wasted billions of dollars.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[ajax2]

Nation building not a good idea, anytime.

[drcrank]

So finally when the veil (actually it was more like a burqua) of secrecy falls after the Bush admin, we get to see just how bad it is. No more "rah-rah" cheerleading from GWB, no more "it keeps America secure" from Cheney. Just the cold hard facts that anyone with half a brain and access to an old history book could plainly see - if you go to war, especially with Afghanistan, you've already failed. Good luck, Mr. Obama. You're going to need it to figure out a way to get out of there while still looking ok to your bloodthirsty population.

[whatawebb]

Afghanistan, with one member calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq"

Of Course it is that is why Bush and Cheney went into Iraq and ignored Afghanistan - it would have been a "REAL" War for them to fight.

[Ascoli]

GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!!

[steamboat]

Obama is putting 30,000 more troops there. And I agree with what he's doing.

[CologneCitizen]

I don't get it. You are in one of the deepest recessions ever to have occurred in America, and your troops play hide and seek on some foreign grounds far away. No clear strategy, huge costs and not even thinking of the loss of lives. I am sorry, but this is pretty dumb. Let them sort out their own mess, get your troops home. Vietnam and Iraq were disastrous, why add another one ?

[steamboat]

VietNam---­--disaster (because congress cut all supplies to South in '73. Same congress which escalated the war in early 60's)

Iraq----unnecessary success (Iraqi's not as tough as Vietnamese, also hatred of Saddam helped us in the end)

Afghanista­n----Gonna be tough, but necessary. Do need EU and world help.

[TastesGrrreat]

Why is it necessary?

Now lets hear you hatred of Muslims rant.

As a Vietnam Vet, I can tell you WE were the bad guys. It was a civil war and brought on by a false flag attack called the Gulf of Tonkin attack (proven).

911 was the false flag attack for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Suggest you do some research sonny. Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with OBL ..........

[TastesGrrreat]

First, the Taliban destroyed a crucial bridge west of Peshawar over which NATO trucks traveled to the Khyber Pass and into Afghanistan. 75% of US and NATO supplies for the war effort in Afghanistan are offloaded at the Pakistani port of Karachi and sent by truck through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. Then the Taliban burned 10 trucks carrying such materiel, to demonstrate their control over the supply route of their enemy. The Taliban can accomplish these breathtaking operations against NATO in Pakistan in large part because Pakistani police and military forces are unwilling to risk much to help distant foreign America beat up their cousins. That reluctance is unlikely to change with any rapidity.

Well, you might say, there are other ways to get supplies to Afghanistan. But remember it is a landlocked country. Its neighbors with borders on the state are Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan; Kyrgyzstan is close enough to offer an air route. Pakistan is the most convenient route, and it may be at an end. China's short border is up in the Himalayas and not useful for transport. Tajikistan is more remote than Afghanistan. The US does not have the kind of good relations with Iran that would allow use of that route for military purposes. A Turkmenistan route would depend on an Iran route, so that is out, too.

[Nonamnesiac]

We cannot afford to occupy Afghanistan the way we occupied Iraq. We cannot afford to remain in Iraq anymore, let alone escalate in Afghanistan. Afghanistan must become a place where terrorists fear they will be eliminated as a result of technology and, over a much longer period of time, being rejected by a relatively secular population. However we cannot again become the main (only) "ally" of a fig leaf government that is, in Afghanistan, a narco state. Our indigenous allies in Afghanistan are primarily drug lords and as long as the brutal, anti-democratic drug lords have our support, the Taliban will have majoritarian support in Afghanistan.



And that doesn't even take into account an angry Russia who is furious because the US wants to put missiles on her borders and does have non-narco state secular support in Afghanistan. The Russians believe they were the good guys during their occupation of Afghanistan, fighting the narco terrorists AND the fundamentalists in Afgthanistan. They believe the US was responsible for their defeat by arming and supporting the barbaric, feudalistic fundamentalists and drug lords in Afghanistan and many Russians and Afghan progressives were killed and maimed as a result. If they start arming those fundamentalists with SAMs, we will have a Russian version of Charley Wilson's war, with many more American dead. Withdraw our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and use terror from the sky as our defense. We can't afford it anyway.

[evekendall]

Say "NO" to another Vietnam. This is a police action, not a war.

[CaptainStormfield]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/view/

If you havent watched this you certainly should.
Peace.

[Luvial]

To those who have read history, imagine Bush or Obama compared to Alexander the Great. Who is leading America in its War Without End? Who has the intelligence, knowledge, vision or experience to even lead the US out of this total failure? No one in the White House or Congress is competent to lead this military debacle to anywhere other than the total disaster that it is. We cannot afford this any longer, but America is no longer a democracy. The people have no control over events. Only America's collapse will end it now.

[Luvial]

Enough is enough. The troops have suffered quire enough. Get out now. Spare the country an even bigger disaster. The military has bankrupted America.

[steamboat]

Unnecessary domestic goodies has bankrupt America. Giving up to 20 million illegal non-citizens medical and education system use has hurt us more. The 'Community Reinvestment Act' has hurt us more...People who can't afford a home but the govt. forces the banks to loan them the money anyway has hurt us more. Here's an example: Near where I live: $300 (not $3000 or $30,000) lets you buy a big $150,000 Townhouse (3 bedrooms & 2 1/2 baths). Stongate Developers at 708-957-8283 if you don't believe me. Now anybody who can only put $300 down can't make payments of has no intention of paying.

[Luvial]

Thanks for taking time off from listening to Rush to share his thoughts.

[hawkseye]

Time to switch to police action against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in protection of NGOs trying to help rebuild country.

[Anciano]

The main reason the troops will be left in Afghanistan? There are no jobs for them when they return home. Returning disaffected combat veterans have been the death knell of many rulers.

[DefeatAllNeocons]

Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires

[hawkseye]

Exactly.

[sansego2000]

Especially when the big hunk of the problem is in Pakistan.

[CaptainStormfield]

I agree. The question is what to do about it.