John King Confronts US Ambassador To Afghanistan Over Inaccurate War Analysis (VIDEO)

Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry was a guest on CNN's "State of the Union" with John King on Sunday to discuss the state of the war in Afghanistan. After nearly eight years of fighting in Afghanistan, the situation appears to be deteriorating, or stuck in a stalemate that is draining our nation's resources.

King confronted Eikenberry over statements he made in 2006 and 2007, when he was still in the military, painting a rosy picture of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. Eikenberry in 2006 said "things are getting better in Afghanistan in every dimension," and said the U.S. was "very well-postured for success" in the country in 2007.

As the situation has worsened, King bluntly asked Eikenberry why the American public "should continue to believe optimistic statements from their government?"

Eikenberry dodged the question, instead insisting that his current analysis is "candid" and that "for the first time since 2002 we have a very clear strategy and matched against that we have resources that are being mobilized."

It's difficult to reconcile that last statement with his previous analyses from 2006 and 2007. Having a clear strategy and the resources to implement are prerequisites for success.

Watch (just the first 3 minutes):

Comments

[SPQR1775]

As an officer in the US Army, who knows General Eikenberry, I must say he is one of the few Military Leaders who is very focus, and stands on principle and integrity. I will always trust his vision and leadership. I must say that he toe the GOP line in 2006 and 2007, although he is an Eisenhower GOP. He is someone who is candid and he did the right thing to ignore King blatant second hand reporting. The worst thing the Pentagon did was to allow embedded journalist into the military, because WAR then as is now becomes a rating game. I do agree and support the need for President OBAMA to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014 at the latest. The Russians was there for 10 years and did not achieve anything. The US is already there for 8 and we have not achieve anything. Like Iraq, Afghanistan will rise and fall on the stars on which it is aligned and these globe trotting nation accupation is not in the best interest of America. In order for any Afgnahs to reach America, they have to go through many nations. The Saudi's bombed America with 15 of their citizens and we did nothing. The country OSAMA Bin Laden was based in does not matter. Had the GOP allowed Clinton in 1998to get Bin Laden, we would be a nation at peace and with our treasury overflowing. It is time for us to turn our weapons into plow shears!

[humdrum02]

Escalating Commitment to a Failing Course of Action

Escalating commitment (or escalation) refers to the tendency for decision makers to persist with failing courses of action. Escalation is determined, at least in part, by decision makers' unwillingness to admit that their prior allocation of resources to the chosen course of action was in vain (the self-justification explanation)...
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/The-escalation-of-commitment-to-a-failing-course-of-action-toward-theoretical-progress.html

...groups exhibiting groupthink characteristics are more likely to escalate commitment to a losing course of action than are groups not exhibiting groupthink characteristics.
http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/267

[IGNSTHMD]

The televised media has undergone several changes; a purveyor of wholesome propaganda in its beginnings, a media filter of in coming and out going derogatory content, a entity of ideological dissonance in the nonpartisan vs. reformer stance, and finally what we have today a provocation oriented, streamlined, real-time, user responsiveness pacification machine. This came about exactly the same time as the 9/11 attacks when the media became hyper-responsive and manifested a patriotic sense of consolation and paternity. The new face of media became and extension of the government‘s mouthpiece to the nation; what George‘s uncle Sam wants, George‘s uncle Sam gets. The media sang the song and we all hummed along. We wasted our indignation to spill blood needlessly instead of squashing terrorism, as a war on terror implies, we went to have a war in Iraq. We didn’t win the war, we didn’t end the war, and it really isn’t even a war. To have won the war we would have had to have an legitimate objective and indicator of success; much like we do not have with our exit strategy. A much more accountable approach could be to indicate the necessary number of Iraqi security forces needed for internal security and the current rate and position of progress toward that goal; there, exit strategy justified. These clear oversights are indications of indiscretion of what is likely a conscious effort to emulsify public opinion to fit seemingly seedy ends, ends clearly not representative of public interests.

[IGNSTHMD]

PT 2

The continuation of this trial by error method of avoiding accountability has cost this nation no small amount of self-determination and will continue to do so off into the future and as far as I can tell with little recourse should misdirection continue to be the bread and butter of public accent.
The government has created a habit of lying to the American people which has to be accounted for before accountability can be restored to the relationship of autonomy and accent. A good place to start is ambiguousness: the Risk Management Agency (which was created in 1996 and oversees the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation) states that its mission is to provide “sound risk management solutions,” with no further explanation. This statement is vague and misleading. Without this statement there is room for questions like what does the RMA do and how do I know when they are doing it effectively. To provide an environment for accountability you often need to remove nonsensical proposals, in this case ambiguity. The American people have been taken in by their own government; this becomes apparent in the like-mindedness of the responsive audience to the absurd and misguided. The layers of lies are so extensive people settle for the nearest rationalization the sheds any light at all towards the truth instead of holding on to the notion of (full?) accountability.

[IGNSTHMD]

PT 3

But it’s more than that, the ideologies involved make it harder for even rational people to disassociate themselves from their biases and push further away the hope of finding a grounded point of reference. And what is there to do when we are all confused and in disagreement, well, we tell ourselves more of what we already believe of course; even if the truth has to carry the burden. I’m not promoting anti-resolution propaganda I’m just concerned that people with good intentions will lean more on assumptions and generalizations now that the political environment is open to a plethora of positive precepts and supportive of most dialog with a motive. There are a variety of ways to do the right thing, and the way we do things is very important right now because it will determine a lot of where the rubber hits the road in the future.

[aahpat]

This is America. As long as its a war who cares where it is. What it cost or why its being fought.

This is America and its a war. Nuff said.

[realpolitic]

Army spokesman are the most Orwellian of all. They say things are fine. Then, a year or two later, say now things are really fine. They have no credibility. Things are probably lousy in Afghanistan. We do not know how to nation build. There is way too much comformity in the army of putting a happy face on eevrything. Investigations are whitewashed in the same manner. The army should occasionally consider its own credibility!

[Wiseronenow]

Few things wrong with this story.

One, CNN and John King reporting it.
Two, King FAILED to mention specifically that Eikinberry is a carry-over from "Bush' reign and particularily for the years of 2006 and 2007. Obama should have really cleaned house when he took office, a la Clinton, but I digress. Yet, King questioned WHY the American people should be confident in their government suggesting that it was the current administrations error in reporting events in Afganastan for 2006-07.
Three, Eikenberry is no longer in the military. His esitmation of the situation now is really unimportant.
Four, I'm sure CNN was trumping up Eikinberry's estimation of the war in 2006 and 2007 though as "we are winning the war on terror".

CNN should really stick with just 'Julie Moss' reporting and her entertainment snippets on any news events. I enjoy her and that's about it on CNN.

[spacecreep]

i didn't know cnn confronted anyone about anything..... it must have been on fox first because they go with fox's bi line

[MedicareISstillSocialism]

Well first off, John King should be on Fox.

[DanHasSpoken]

Yes, off to Fox with you, John King!

[vote2009]

list of companies that did run ads on Glenn Beck on August 24:

•DirecTV
•Binder & Binder
•EasyWater
•Liberty Medical
•Superior Gold Group
•Bank of America
•Rosland Capital
•Johnson Law Group
•Citrix (GoToMeeting)
•Carbonite
•Merit Financial
•Applebee's
•Discover Bank (Discover Card)
•Binder & Binder
•Pulaski & Middleman
•Bank of America
•Pulaski & Middleman
•Sandals Resort
•The Villages
•Smart Balance
•Rosland Capital
•Zero Technologies (ZeroWater)

[GodBlessAmerica]

Gee, I'm sure that must be interesting to someone, possibly only you, but has ZERO to do with the topic at hand.

Keep it on-topic, ok?

[GOPpizzaParty]

Your moniker is a lie--

Keep it on-topic, ok?

[IGNSTHMD]

send it to color of change.org

[jeanrenoir]

"Progressive" peaceniks with their heads in the sand need to get one thing straight: Afghanistan bears no relation to Vietnam, except for the likelihood of our failure there. Thanks to the neocons and their puppet Bush's neglect of Afghanistan and the Taliban during their absurd, and potentially suicidal (for us and for Israel) invasion of Iraq, it may well be that the resurgent Taliban, after years and years of regrouping, is now too strong for us to defeat, especially given the pacifist tendencies of the Boomers and their kids in this country, who will no doubt beat the drums ever louder demanding that Obama simply "cut and run." It was obvious even in the Sixties, much less now, that Vietnam was no threat to America. But Afghanistan is potentially the most deadly threat America has ever faced in its history. If the Taliban and Al Qaeda defeat us there, what's to stop them from conquering Pakistan, too, given the corruption of the tiny minority ruling the vast, abused peasant majority in that country? And if Al Qaeda ends up with Pakistan's nukes, there is literally no way Israel or America will be able to keep them from finding some way to nuke NYC, Tel Aviv, Boca, you name it. So "progressives" should be seeing Afghanistan as a fight to the death, just like WWII, and totally UNlike Vietnam.

[lazercat2008]

Any knowledge of the Taliban would help you understand the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan. They base their view of the world on things that were around when the Koran was written. They have no interest in anything modern and rebel against it. They have a strict following of Islamic law as they see it. They are the equivalent of the Amish. Now how is a group like this going to do anything to a 21st Century Superpower? Get out of the cupboard there is nothing to be afraid of except your own government.

[notb observer]

You can't beat these people because you can't see them. In that respect, it's very much like Vietnam. The odd Predator strike is not going to put a dent in their organization or morale, and some would argue that the strikes simply work as a recruiting tool for them. They generally view NATO and US forces as they have viewed every other army since Genghis Khan. Foreigners who can simply be waited out and demoralized with attrition.
There is nothing strategic in Afghanistan with the possible exception of a pipeline route for oil from the former Soviet "stans". The risk to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal comes not from Afghanistan but from within Pakistan itself, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are already well entrenched in Pakistan.
The key to any solution in the region is to settle the old dispute between India and Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir territory. Afghanistan is only a distraction.
The groups you refer to as Taliban (and to a lesser extent Al Qaeda) are not monolithic organizations like our own army. There are comprised of complex tribal organizations and even more complex affiliations. You can lump them into a group and give them any convenient label you like, but the reality is not that simple.

[Wiseronenow]

Nothing like WWII. Ever hear of guerilla warfare? THAT is what your war in Afganastan will be like if we ever truly commit 'boots on the ground'. You don't have clue.

[rsaillant1]

You write; "And if Al Qaeda ends up with Pakistan's nukes, there is literally no way Israel or America will be able to keep them from finding some way to nuke NYC, Tel Aviv, Boca, you name it."

Sure there is, and it would merely require us, the US, to accept the label
as the first country ever to employ nuclear weapons against an enemy...what?

What's that? We already did, back in WWII? Hell then, what's the problemo?

Don't the Taliban and Al Queda know this, don't they know who they're messing
with?......Jeez, send them some video tape, for a change. Show them some of our
really big carnage films. We did film them, right?

[lazercat2008]

Here's my timetable for Afghanistan. Get Out Now.

[IGNSTHMD]

YEAHh... um, yEAH...

[Richard729]

Unfortunately, Obama has to trust the top military brass who have been running the wars since 2002. If some general says we need more troops here or there Obama, like Bush, signs off on whatever the military needs. Everything about these wars is based on rosy scenarios one day, then when reality hits home, i.e., a resurgent Taliban and huge drug money from record opium sales in Afghanistan, buys more arms from terrorist states like Iran and probably Pakistan.

Then, a new general like Stanley McCrystal takes over in Afghanistan and all the media tell us how smart he is and we feel better for a few months. But, it's money down the black hole and U.S.military caught in tribal warfare are somehow supposed to sort out who the bad guys are and who are the non-combatant civilians. Yeah, that''s a real military strategy alright!

The coalition of the once- willing other nations has also wilted. They realize that we're trying to bring high tech knowledge to a country whose citizens' life expectancy is under 45-years-old and literacy rate is 28% (less than 13% for women). Guess who's laughing now? The Russians.

[HamletsMill]

I have not seen him for years now, but read Vladislav Tamarov's book "Afghanistan: Soviet Vietnam". He spent 28 months in combat there as a Russian paratrooper. He used to always sleep armed with a pistol under his pillow. But I would never permit it in my house.

There is no military solution to the current situation in Afghanistan other than bring back the draft and send a million U.S. troops to protect the people at the village level in something like General Gavin's fortress concept in Vietnam that was, of course, never implemented.

Two family member who speak fluent Farsi spent the last eight years there on the ground getting medical relief help to ten million Afghans across 16 provinces. They are now back home for good. No one from the Obama Administration has ever even sought them out for first hand knowledge from their hands on experience. This is all very, very strange.

A massive draft and sending massive troops immediately is the only solution. Otherwise, it will be stalemate, quagmire, and defeat by ten thousand lashes just like in Vietnam. It is now 40 years after Vietnam and our nation still does not understand how to address an insurgency situation. The only other thing would be making local deals with the Taliban like the "Sunni Awakening" approach in Iraq.But I believe this would require a nuance our military leadership does not have.

[Richard729]

Right you are my friend. I looked at the picture you linked of Earth taken from the Mars Rover lander. Indeed we are but an infinitesimal speck in the vastness of space.

Your other links to suggested reading material are equally prodigious and I doubt if I'll ever come close to reading all of them, let alone understand the complex issues. Years ago I checked out a book, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Way, way over my head in the scope of knowledge it contained. I think I got the general drift though.

In his book Walden, Thoreau mentions reading Homer's The Iliad in its original Greek in order to gain the full appreciation of this epic work. I have difficulty reading it in English.

It would be ideal if mankind spent as much time preserving the fragile balance of life and our dwindling resources as we do on material pursuits. As we read almost daily, war and destruction seem to take center stage.

[Ergon]

We seem to have a lot of mail order bride services offering to 'airlift women out of Afghanistan'.

[ChangeurMind]

I thought Obama got elected to end wars., not expand them.... oh, Obama... right. Never mind. That was the campaign.

[yankee452]

You obviously didnt pay attention during the campaign.

Or you're just pulling blinders over your eyes, cause you're just itching to dig in another cheap shot.

Obama NEVER campaigned on ''ending all wars''.

He insisted on ending our combat role and presence in Iraq as soon as we could responsibly. He was adamant that the Iraqi government step up and take responsibility for their own country.

However, Obama NEVER once said anything about withdrawing from Afghanistan. In fact he pushed for the exact opposit. Obama actually believed the real front in the war is in eastern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan, and doesnt think the US should put up with the Pakistani government dragging their feet over standing up to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Obama did not run an anti war campaign. And he NEVER once declared as President that he would run a pacifist White House.

You know this as a fact ! How could you not?

It was a long #$$ campaign - anyone who pretends to think Obama was ever anti war is either a liar or just plain intellectually handicapped.

[d49]

accurate and well stated

[ChangeurMind]

So he is pro-war?

[lazercat2008]

One small problem.... The Military Industrial Complex.

[Montgriz]

Our greatest employer and our only real export....

[cybolt]

The article states:
"After nearly eight years of fighting in Afghanistan, the situation appears to be deteriorating, or stuck in a stalemate that is draining our nation's resources."
Says who?
The writer? The scholarly Nicholas Graham? Who is HE?
It's not an Op-Ed, is it? It's positioned as a news story so to whom is that attributable?
Who's flippin' opinion of Afghanistan is that?
I'm not taking exception with the content, mind you; I'm angry as hell over HuffPo passing this off as objective journalism.
It's anything but and a statement like that would never make it past the editor of a high school newspaper because apparently, they know more about journalsim than the writers at this web site.
This is the perfect example of why we should all mourn when a newspaper closes.

[sheoples]

7+ years we let military take care of iraq.........still no resolution and we're supposed to listen to these folks again???????

sheeples roll over......again

[johnmorgan]

I'm glad the media are asking harder questions now, but why did they wait till now? Why not ask these same questions in 2004? We've been lied to again and again, especially about Iraq, especially by Bush officials, and their word was treated as gospel by the pundits.