NY Times On McChrystal's Long War

New York Times:

Success takes time, but how much time does Stanley McChrystal have? The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year. The Taliban, measured by the number of their attacks, are stronger than at any time since the Americans toppled their government at the end of 2001. American soldiers and Marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. Polls in the United States show that opposition to the war is growing steadily.

Worse yet, for all of America's time in Afghanistan -- for all the money and all the blood -- the lack of accomplishment is manifest wherever you go. In Garmsir, there is nothing remotely resembling a modern state that could take over if America and its NATO allies left. Tour the country with a general, and you will see very quickly how vast and forbidding this country is and how paltry the effort has been.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[lapdogs]

If we actually attacked the country that had the most terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, we would have been in Saudi Arabia back on 9/12/2001 with our military.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml

[Ergon]

And as to the claim we're fighting AQ and the Taleban because of 9/11, the war was planned BEFORE the attacks. From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Russian troops were on standby

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah"

[Chipher]

There's an eerie similarity between official reaction to the Colorado balloon boy hoax, and the Karzai ballot stuffing hoax. In both cases, the officials vociferously insist the results were real and not made up, and in both cases, they support the perpetrator, and say no charges will be filed, because they are so damned afraid of losing their jobs in this Meltdown-Happy up economy, that 'white is black'.

[Ergon]

Here's a definitive answer to the question, why are we in Afghanistan?
Asia Times journalist Pepe Escobar, one of my favorite writers series
Pipelinistan http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html shows why:
"Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.

The Caspian states hold at least 200 billion barrels of oil, and Central Asia has 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas just begging to be exploited. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are two major producers: Turkmenistan is nothing less than a "gas republic". Apart from oil and gas there's copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, iron, uranium, gold"

Statements that the oil and gas reserves were overestimated are just American sour grapes after the major contracts went to Russia's Gazprom and Argentina's Bridas; the Chinese are already building their pipeline eastwards from the Caspian, and the Americans?

They're just trying to block the Iran Pakistan India pipeline and the Russian pipelines to Europe.

[Chipher]

Let's do a thought experiment like they do at the George Bush Center for Intelligence

The Last Helicopter

The Afghan Election Commission resists the lethal pressure it's under by Karzai, Clinton and Gates and determines Karzai did not 'win' 50% of the vote. A run-off election is scheduled against Abdullah, who controls the north, and is being woed by Iran and Russia, and maybe Ghani, in an attempt to split the vote against Karzai. In a frantic effort against the coming winter, ballots are printed and sent out to the provinces and from there to the city precincts.

The Pakistani Army, already planning its second assualt on Swat after the recent bombings, goes in again, and sends 3M Pakistani refugees fleeing from the valley, while the Taliban flee into Afghanistan and head towards Kabul, only a few hundred kliks away. In vendetta, the Taliban begin a methodical suicide bombing campaign that totally disrupts Kabul and threatens to delay the elections, even as the first snows blanket the Hindu Kush.

In response to the Taliban violence, Obama authorizes the full allotment of 40,000 troops, and another $100B downpayment for 'emergency funding'. Can ya' smell what the Rock is cookin'?

[Clayton139]

Leave ! ! !

[Chernynkaya]

There is only one reason to be in Afghanistan: What is in the United State’s national interests? Like it or not, that is the amoral position of all nations.

Are we in Afghanistan to protect us from future attt@cks? That would presume ALQaida is there or will be there. But they are there, then they’re not, then they are. They are mobile and while athreat, they cannot be stopped by armies. The Ta1iban? They are an indirect danger because we cannot allow them to control Pakistan’s n*kes. And they are headquartered and financed by the Pakistani military—so Afghanistan is only useful as a base through which we may have to invade Pakistan someday.

Are we in Afghanistan to gain control of the potential gas pipeline? Maybe. But then why did Bush (incompetent though he was) practically walk away from there? He was and is foremost an oil man. And think about why Cheney is so hot to surge in Afghanistan? Does anyone really think he cares about trror? He cares about control of energy. That makes a good case for the gas pipeline reason.

So to my way of armchair-general thinking, we are there for two reasons: As a base to prevent r@dica1islam gaining control of Pakistan’s nooks, and in the great geopolitical game that is energy control.

[iScan]

A lot of it is for the defensive and construction contracts. Iraq was a big No-Bid deal, where there was no competition so the companies got to charge the US gov whatever they want. And the US gov had ties to them so people Like Cheney reaped the benefits of a contract given to a company he used to run, even though it was an outlandish price, he still didd it and was indirectly stealing from his own country. Now? Well everybody saw it get out of hand after we(well, some of us) were blinded by the opportunities Iraq offered. So what was once much more simple became overrun with complications, and we can only blame ourselves for letting it get out of hand. I say start at the country WITH the nukes and work your way out, not the other way around so they can flank your cities holding weapons of mass destruction..that's just sloppy. And it didn't have to be that way but besides ignoring it, the previous admin PLANNED to stay there. Forever. So that wouldn't give much incentive for apprehension and quick resolution, would it? Hopefully things will move along now.

[Chernynkaya]

If you are saying that we are in Afghanistan for the defense contracts, I disagree. Those are just the icing on the cake for the neocon crowd but I do not believe they are a factor in considering what to do now.

As for where it is best to protect us from Pakistan's n8ukes-- are you saying we should invade Pakistan?

[yogandclimber]

the Taliban is an indirect danger? They are the ones directly trying to take over Afghanistan and our troops are fighting them directly. Why don't we want them to take back over? Well 9 years ago they were there with Al Quaeda and they planned 9/11 from Afghanistan. We overturned the Taliban and now there is no Al Quaeda activity in Afghanistan.... is that a coincidence? If we leave now the Taliban take back over Afghanistan... anyone doubt that?

[Chipher]

Except that from 1997 on the Taliban were meeting in Houston with Cheney's oil men, in fact, right up until Cheney and Bush decided it was easier to invade and drive the Taliban out, which they informed India and Pakistan we were going to do in July, 2001.

9/11 was planned in Europe and GCC, and executed by Saudis and Egyptians already living in the United States.

Afghanistan was like those camps you went to as a kid to learn how to shoot a bow and arrow, and a .22, and paddle a canoe, and sing kumbayah. Afghanistan, like Iraq, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

[noneIn2008]

68,000 today, they are now asking for 80,000 more. Why not 500,000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0VBw5H5ch0&feature=channel_page

The best the pro troops guy can offer is that it is a toss up to pull the troops or send more and it's Obama's call? Awe what the heck, toss a coin and see if we should sacrifice more American lives to justify the next coin toss. McNamara would be proud of the current generation of number crunchers.

Get us out now. Pull the plug.

[Chipher]

Everyone is just waiting for the balloon to land in Kabul to see whether Karzai 'won' 50% of the vote.

Then like those wind-up robots we had when I was a kid, they'll wind Afghanistan back up again, and the gears will grind, the arms will swing, the lights will flash, and we're off to $238B EVERY YEAR.

[iScan]

And jeeze let's stop putting people's names on this fi/ght.

It's a War. In Afghanistan. If anything, call it Bush's Short-sighted Vengence.

Ok I'm no better. Let's just call it the Afghanistan War, and stop affixing it to people so we have somebody to blame when/if it doesn't work out. It's our war people.

[GaBu2]

Remember after the breakup of the Soviet Union, we were all running skeered because their nukes would go missing and end up in the hands of ______________ (place contemporary bad guy here)?

[GaBu2]

Ok, why are we in Afghanistan? For AQ. I'm sure many of you don't want to hear this,b ut AQ is a minor threat compared to the looming issues we have.

From the att ac ks on nine uno uno, until Sept 2004, 2,929 people dies from Turr att ac ks WORLDWIDE... meanwhile an estimated 45,000 die years because of lack of insurance. Why are we spending so much money on a relatively minor threat, when we have much larger issues to deal with?

[iScan]

Thats the real question isn't it? But we already have people that can change that here, once they get over their bank account imbalance that is. Multitask.

[blico]

De@ths per 100K about the same as those with insurance. S1ckne$$ and de@th are as certain as taxes. T3rrists don't need to exist, besides they also break things! What ever happened to the world loves us now since Jan.?.

[Chernynkaya]

There is only one reason to be in Afghanistan: What is in the United State’s national interests? Like it or not, that is the amoral position of all nations.

Are we in Afghanistan to protect us from future atttacks? That would presume ALQaida is there or will be there. But they are there, then they’re not, then they are. They are mobile and while a thre@t, they cannot be stopped by armies. The Taliban? They are an indirect thre@t because we cannot allow them to control Pakistan’s n*kes. And they are headquartered and financed by the Pakistani military—so Afghanistan is only useful as a base through which we may have to invade Pakistan someday.

Are we in Afghanistan to gain control of the potential gas pipeline? Maybe. But then why did Bush (incompetent though he was) practically walk away from there? He was and is foremost an oil man. And think about why Cheney is so hot to surge in Afghanistan? Does anyone really think he cares about trror? He cares about control of energy. That makes a good case for the gas pipeline reason.

So to my way of armchair-general thinking, we are there for two reasons: As a base to prevent r@dicalislam gaining control of Pakistan’s nooks, and in the great geopolitical game that is energy control.

[iScan]

repost(sorry if there's a dupe)

OR.

We build roads everywhere.
We build schools everywhere.
We lay internet and phone lines.
We take all nuk/es out of the ME and des/troy them, including our own. And have Russia and whomever else join the new world or be doo/med to obscurity while the peaceful utopia we build flourishes.

Knowledge is power. People can free themselves if you just enable them.

[HumeSkeptic]

That should be the long term goal.
Right now, rebuilding effort in Afghanistan is hampered by Tal-iban attacks. That is one of the major problems.
.

[iScan]

If we focus on that more and bombing less, we can counter their growing support. This needs to be 2 parts, infiltrate the civilian mindset, and infiltrate the Taliban centers of operation(usually ramshackle tents on the side of a mountain). By doing the former you can accomplish the latter much faster.

[iScan]

If we don't immediately counter their support, the odds will continue to stack against us, and it will be just like the soviets where the Pashtuns working for them turn against them and they are scr/ewed from the inside out. Bam! 14+ thousand de/ad. No thanks.

[Chipher]

Then watch as Ecotopia turns into Lord of the Flies.

[Chernynkaya]

There is only one reason to be in Afghanistan: What is in the United State’s national interests? Like it or not, that is the amoral position of all nations.

Are we in Afghanistan to protect us from future terroristAttacks? That would presume ALQaida is there or will be there. But they are there, then they’re not, then they are. They are mobile and while a threat, they cannot be stopped by armies. The Taliban? They are an indirect threat because we cannot allow them to control Pakistan’s n*kes. And they are headquartered and financed by the Pakistani military—so Afghanistan is only useful as a base through which we may have to invade Pakistan someday.

Are we in Afghanistan to gain control of the potential gas pipeline? Maybe. But then why did Bush (incompetent though he was) practically walk away from there? He was and is foremost an oil man. And think about why Cheney is so hot to surge in Afghanistan? Does anyone really think he cares about trror? He cares about control of energy. That makes a good case for the gas pipeline reason.

So to my way of armchair-general thinking, we are there for two reasons: As a base to prevent radicalislam gaining control of Pakistan’s nooks, and in the great geopolitical game that is energy control.

[PhilipTaylor]

Ta1iban has never been completely defeated in terrain “they know like the back of their hand!”

Ta1iban = small guerr!11a units who hide in millions of places and lob F1RE and plant 1EDs on roads.

US defe@t of dynamic gori11a f!ghters with millions of places to hide has ZER0 chance of a complete V!ctory! Yet that seems to be the US GOAL?

0BAMA said there are about 100+ al Q@eda in Afgan. and again US has L0ST ITS F0CUS!

[iScan]

It doesn't help that Bin Laden owned(or still owns?) a construction company, so he basically makes the land into whatever he wants, and then bulldozes fortifications behind him...And sometimes in his down time he builds roads for impoverished cities, further pushing our cause into the questionable zone.

[blico]

Where did you ever get that from? That is simply ludicrous!

[Chipher]

OK, s.l.o.w.l.y push yourself away from your computer, then reach over and turn ... it ... off.

[HumeSkeptic]

Despite your exaggerrations (millions of places?), you basic point is valid, except that Tal-iban is hardly a small group. Also, not all Tal-iban are aligned with al Qaeda.Also, I should point out that Tal-iban came into existence well after Soviet defeat. So, to say that they have never been defeated is not quite accurate.
The word Tali-ban means (religious) students. These guys started out in Pakistani madrassas, then moved back to Afghanistan. It was there that they got aligned with the Arab (former) Mujahedins, who had become al Qaeda.

[iScan]

yeah didn't the CIA fund the Mujaho-downs?

[Chipher]

"It was there that they got aligned with the Arab (former) Mujahedins, who had become al Qaeda"

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

You are misunderapplying all the wrong labels. You just said Michael Milken got aligned with the Latter Day Saints, who had become all Blue Dog Democrats!

[iScan]

OR.

How about we just get rid of all nuclear weapons.
Build roads and schools everywhere.
Lay phone/internet lines.

People can free themselves if you enable them to. Knowledge is power. And if it fails, well then there's no nukes for the heretics(oops, I mean terrorists) to get their hands on.

[Chipher]

Wireless! Hello? Afghanistan!

[MartinEden22]

Escalating the war in Afghanistan is the wrong thing to do. We do, however, have an obligation to keep the Taliban from overthrowing the government. Thus, we should go back to Bush's strategy.

Use as few U.S. troops as possible to keep the Taliban contained.
Use drones to strike al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership in Pakistan.
Support reconstruction.
Train the Afghan Army and police.

Biden wants to go back to the Bush strategy; Obama should listen.

[PhilipTaylor]

Biden is going beyond the Bush strategy!

But points 1 to 4 are sensible!

Especially # 4 since the cost of One American troop is equal to 125 to 500 Afghani Troops!

[ErnestineBass]

Are you referring to Karzai's "government"? LMAO

He's the Mayor of Kabul, dude.

[Chipher]

"We do, however, have an obligation to keep the Taliban from overthrowing the government."

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

Sorry, I must have missed that passage in the Status of Forces Agreement. Was it hidden in the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund Report to Donors, because I think you just made it up.