iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jon Soltz

GET UPDATES FROM Jon Soltz
 

The Situation in Afghanistan Gets Worse

Posted: 03/15/2012 11:59 am

A couple of days ago, I said that the events over the last couple months -- the murder of 16 innocent Afghans by a soldier, the burning of Qurans, and desecration of dead bodies -- meant counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan have failed and President Obama had to end them.

Today, things only got worse, for three reasons.

First, Afghan President Karzai issued a statement calling on all NATO forces to pull out of Afghan villages. It's a move, if implemented, that would effectively end counter-insurgency operations and make NATO forces move towards an Advise, Train, and Assist (ATA) role, much like the one in Iraq in 2011.

In his statement, Karzai said, "Not a single foreign soldier should enter Afghan homes, and the entire attention should switch to the country's reconstruction and economic assistance... Afghanistan is right now ready to completely take all security responsibilities, so we demand a speedy transition and the hand-over of responsibility to the Afghans."

Now, this could be posturing by Karzai. It's possible that it isn't what he really wants, but feels that as his people turn against Americans, it is something he has to call for. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't matter. Counter-insurgency operations' entire purpose is to provide security for the population so services can be rendered by government and peace can be brokered with the opposition. It absolutely, positively requires the support of the indigenous government.

Karzai's statement calls that support into serious doubt, making counter-insurgency even more difficult than it was right after the killing of Afghan innocents just a few days ago. It quite possibly renders any counter-insurgency success impossible.

Secondly, and relatedly, talks with the Taliban have been suspended, meaning a core purpose of counter-insurgency is now on the ropes. While it seems that preconditions for talks were the reason for the suspension, there can be no doubt that the death of innocent Afghans influenced the Taliban's decision to halt talks. If there can be no negotiations with the Taliban to bring them into the fold, then there is absolutely no purpose -- no goal -- for counter-insurgency.

And finally, and underreported, are riots in the street over American immunity, and calling for it to end. That is an unacceptable condition -- we can never allow U.S. troops to be tried in a foreign court. And yet, the Afghan people are pressuring the Afghan government to call for it. This is important, because it was the hot issue when I was in Iraq in 2011. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki refused any immunity for U.S. troops if there was going to be an extension of troops post-2011, because of his own domestic political pressure. And that issue -- largely -- was the reason why the U.S. could not negotiate an extension of our troop presence there.

In Afghanistan, the issue may, once again, scuttle any long-term arrangement between Afghanistan and the West, meaning that a withdrawal from the Afghan democracy will come much sooner rather than later. It also puts in danger any negotiated counter-terror mission, which would require immunity for U.S. forces. In the meantime, however, wrangling over troop immunity makes it much more difficult for our troops to operate because, again, it means we do not have the full support of the people.

President Obama has a lot of issues to weigh, but I really hope he sides with the American troops on the ground. They're now being asked by our government to provide security to a population in a mission that is no longer wanted by the democratically elected leader of that country, making their current mission untenable and unproductive. Therefore, the only conclusion he can come to is to engage U.S. forces in a mission that can be successful. And that is an immediate transition to an ATA role, on the way towards a negotiated counter-terror mission with a very limited footprint.

 

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

A couple of days ago, I said that the events over the last couple months -- the murder of 16 innocent Afghans by a soldier, the burning of Qurans, and desecration of dead bodies -- meant counter-insur...
A couple of days ago, I said that the events over the last couple months -- the murder of 16 innocent Afghans by a soldier, the burning of Qurans, and desecration of dead bodies -- meant counter-insur...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 178
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:07 PM on 03/19/2012
The military knew that they were totally screwed going into Afghanistan. Nobody could understand The Russians in Afghanistan -- the losses, strange reasons, desperation, death. And then we do it ourselves?

Like taking over the Viet Nam unwar from the French. Welcome to Indochina. Drafted, in a plane, wake up in Viet Nam -- see the jungle, check it out for us.

Afghanistan has no jungle. actually has nothing. Nothing here guys, gonna have to kick in doors and uncover the enemy. The U.S. spending is the Afghan economy: like make that work. Did they lose all there manufacturing jobs too.
photo
psychophil
Don't listen to me.
01:49 PM on 03/16/2012
The situation is getting worse, except in terms of statistics. The number of Afghans and US soldiers being killed in violence is very slowly declining, the number of Afghan kids receiving an education is steadily increasing, and the country's GDP has increased by about 20% each year since we arrived.

That doesn't mean we should keep doing what we're doing, but it does mean we have made some important, hard-won progress and should not throw that away like it's nothing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:09 PM on 03/19/2012
Poppies? Source of GDP growth would be my question.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
juna
Golden Rule is my religion
10:14 AM on 03/16/2012
I would like to hear a very clear and definitive explanation of our "mission" in Afghanistan. Panetta referred to our mission there yesterday, but what exactly is it? Does anyone know? I'd be grateful if you can tell me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZombieSM
Don't blame me I voted for Dr. Jill Stein
06:49 PM on 03/16/2012
We have a very concise mission in Afghanistan guided by our world renown ' No Strategy " Strategy.
photo
speakingtruth2power
Not motivated by fear & loathing
06:49 PM on 03/16/2012
To feed the MIC until we can start up another war elsewhere, Iran?
08:58 AM on 03/16/2012
I think the problem is that, if a large deployment of American combat troops in an occupying role who regularly perform search and destroy missions, carry out night raids to disrupt the Taliban, negotiate on the ground with tribal leaders, gather intelligence etc, can barely hold the line against the Taliban insurgency, it is difficult to imagine how a drastically reduced occupying force carrying out counter-terrorism missions alone can possible have any success. The U.S. would no longer have any bargaining chips to play against the Taliban and intelligence data, on Taliban movement, personnel, activities, would simply dry up without this substantial American presence. And without an American presence, why would any tribal leaders cooperate against a resurgent Taliban as the U.S. withdrew its protection from villages?
This is not an argument for continuing the American combat role beyond the Obama imposed 2014 deadline but simply a recognition that counter-terrorism, or counter-insurgency lite, trying to do more with less, is unlikely to succeed. If a large U.S. footprint has had only marginal success in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, a small U.S. footprint is likely to be even more problematic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:48 AM on 03/16/2012
This points yet again to the truth that empire is a failure. Bush had no plans going in other than to put Unocal's
Karzai in charge of pipeline and mineral extraction contracts for Halliburton and other corporations. Anyone looking at any photo of Afghanistan knows that 20 or 50 guys can get together anywhere to plan anything the want. There is no way to stop planning there any more than in Colorado or Wyoming. The whole disaster is unglued. Out now.
photo
VoteOrDie
Enjoy the ride
08:47 AM on 03/16/2012
We can't afford to stay here. Our soldiers have done everything they were asked, monetarily we can't afford it, we look like punks and bullies, killing innocent civilians for what??
We are done..Bush's 2 fake wars have sent out country in to a near depression and the lives lost are not worth a people who don't want us there.
Our own country needs reconstruction and finacial support!! Bring our men and women home and stop the bleeding.
08:38 AM on 03/16/2012
We are going to keep our troops in Alganistan so that they will be available for our upcoming war with Iran. That's the deal with Netanyahu.
08:33 AM on 03/16/2012
"towards a negotiated counter-terror mission"?

What if the Talibans were to say that the breeders of the worst "terror" in Afghanistan are
the foreign occupation forces themselves and that no trace of these forces should be left
behind ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Y Woodman Brown
live & let live
08:26 AM on 03/16/2012
I don't know. The BBC told me yesterday that it has been a good two years since American troops killed even a single member of al-Qaeda. Yet 500 civilians have been killed since then.

So I suppose our time has been devoted to keeping Mr. Karzai safe. It seems to have worked too. 'cause he's been feeling empowered enough for a while now to bad-mouth America and insist that the troops stand-down. Personally, I think he's feeling a little embarrassed running that opium operation under our watchful eye...maybe afraid we'll ask for a bigger cut.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmounday
Don't believe anything you read below
08:15 AM on 03/16/2012
One has to wonder if the presidents war policy was just a cover to protect him from the narrative that dems are white flag wavers?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dawlishgal
07:39 AM on 03/16/2012
I heard on the news that the killer had suffered brain damage and was still returned for another period. I had heard earlier that the VA was blaming brain injuries on previously existing conditions so that the government would not have to pay for the damage. I have little sympathy for the guy who slaughtered children in their own homes, but he should not have been on the front-lines anyhow. Is this investigation going to be like the prison camp ones, where the entire pile of blame is heaped on those at the bottom? Is THIS why he has been spirited out of Afghanistan?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:05 AM on 03/16/2012
Yes, he will solely bear the blame and punishment for what happened. The bureauracy that deployed him for the 3rd time to a combat zone after being injured twice and most assuredly suffering from PTSD will wash their hands of any responsibility. As far as the VA, yes they do attempt to cry "pre existing condition". Why? Look at the projected budget for all of the vets who have served from the first gulf war until now, and what it will cost to care for them.
costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/.../Bilmes%20Veterans%20Costs.pdf

This is a quagmire that has far reaching implications in so many directions. Bottom line, we need to be OUT of the middle east.
lastpost
see biography
05:34 AM on 03/16/2012
"Today, things only got worse, for three reasons."
DC in DC. A special relationship. US reinforcements deployed to the Falklands.

"the hand-over of responsibility to the Afghans."
Does their constitution gift citizens the right to carry arms?

"there can be no doubt that the death of innocent Afghans influenced the Taliban's decision to halt talks."
They may have felt that others were muscling in on their turf and concessions.

"we can never allow U.S. troops to be tried in a foreign court."
That might give the impression that might might not always be right.

"that issue -- largely -- was the reason why the U.S. could not negotiate an extension of our troop presence there."
So there is a legal way of expelling invaders.

"It also puts in danger any negotiated counter-terror mission, which would require immunity for U.S. forces."
Don’t stealth helicopters still trump immunity?

"They're now being asked by our government to provide security to a population in a mission that is no longer wanted by the democratically elected leader of that country"
The function of the military of a democratic country is, in addition, to prevent government confiscation of power from the people. Another duty fail.
photo
Wolverine7196
In space no one can hear you scream...
05:28 AM on 03/16/2012
Reinstate the draft, this will end these fabricated wars, I'll bet if Obama or Bush's kids faced being drafted, wars like this wouldn't seem that important.

Obama is a 3rd term of Bush regarding our continued adventurism in the middle east and around the world for that matter, no wonder we're broke.

It's just like Eisenhower warned us 50 years ago, the military industrial complex can't be trusted and now they run this country and our gutless politicians. I came to the conclusion decades ago this country was hijacked by the power brokers or shadow government.
05:25 AM on 03/16/2012
Leave but take our money with us. Not another American life or dollar for this place. See how quickly they want to be our best friends is we stop giving them money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:01 AM on 03/16/2012
Glad to see you agree that this illegal and immoral invasion and occupation should have never started and should end immediately.
04:31 AM on 03/16/2012
Time to go, and before we go, destroy any infrastructure we built and let the Afghans build whatever hell they want.
08:37 AM on 03/16/2012
That is evil of you. Fortunately, governments don't function like that.