Afghanistan and Obama's New Plan

[DBAHO]

I really don't think I'd call them a stable government any more. That's a big part of the problem. The recent years of neglect have reduced the influence of the government that was organized after the fall of the Taliban to nearly zero, and has discredited it in the eyes of most of the population.

Oh, that's certainly not good then.

 

I mean it's still obviously better than the Iraqi situation, but Afghanistan is very close to a full blown civil war possibly, and after Iraq, America can't really afford to let that happen.

[DBAHO]

THE war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan will be lost by the end of the northern summer without dramatic changes in counter-insurgency strategy, according to a US military expert.

 

The assessment of Colonel John Nagl, who is consultant to the US Government as it conducts four policy reviews on Afghanistan, comes amid fears that unless the insurgents' advance is halted, Afghanistan will become President Barack Obama's Vietnam.

 

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he expected to announce the deployment of a further 30,000 US troops soon, even though President Obama's Administration is waiting to evaluate the reviews.

 

Earlier, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Mr Obama would make a decision about sending additional troops to Afghanistan in the next few days.

 

He said a decision must be made before an Obama-ordered review of US strategy in Afghanistan was completed because of the need to give sufficient notice to units that might be deployed.

 

Mr Gates has been considering a request from his commander in Afghanistan to add up to 30,000 troops over the coming year. Army General David McKiernan has asked for the new forces to beat back a renewed Taliban insurgency.

 

There are about 37,000 US troops in Afghanistan and another 32,000 from other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

 

Colonel Nagl, an Iraq veteran who helped devise the strategy, said the gains made by the Taliban needed to be reversed by the end of the fighting season, around late September or early October, or else the Taliban would establish a durable base that would make a sustained Western military presence futile.

 

During his election campaign, Mr Obama committed to sending extra resources to Afghanistan and was bullish about the chance of success.

 

But at a news conference this week, he played down expectations of ushering in a Western-style democracy and instead set a more modest goal of preventing the country from becoming a haven for terrorists to "act with impunity".

[Balta1701]

Hamid Karzai stated yesterday that he has yet to speak to President Obama despite the President being in office for nearly 4 weeks. He met with the new President's envoy, Richard Holbrooke, yesterday.

 

This is a strong suggestion that the Obama administration does not trust Prime Minister Karzai and views him as an ineffective Bush Crony/holdover and that they're probably working on finding a replacement.

 

Meanwhile, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) may have embarassed the U.S. and Pakistan earlier this week while this page was down by stating publicly that the U.S. was flying some of its highly unpopular unmanned predator bombing missions from airbases within Pakistan. A predator strike yesterday within Pakistan killed 28. These strikes have aroused anger throughout Pakistan because of the number of civilians they keep killing, even if they hit their target.

[Balta1701]

17,000 or so more troops for Afghanistan by the summer. The military there had requested 20-30,000 more, so it's undershooting their requested number. The administration made a point today of saying that this move does not override their strategic review of Afghanistan, which is still in progress, so it's possible more could come or other noteworthy things could change, but they're probably putting this out now to get the deployments scheduled.

 

In other Afghanistan news, the UN today released a report on civilian casualties in country last year. The death toll counted as over 2100 related to combat, an increase of 40% over the year before. The worrisome part to my eyes was that about 55% of those casualties were caused by the Taliban. That means the international forces in that country killed almost as many civilians as the Taliban did. That should be a major strategic concern; the people aren't going to like you that much if they have as much of a chance from dying due to your missiles fired from aircraft as they do from an IED.

[Rex Kickass]

Insurgent wars are just so damn difficult to win if you aren't the insurgency. There's so much balancing that needs to happen to make Afghanistan helpful... and the US may find itself in a deal with the devil so to speak to keep the pot from boiling over. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the answer may lie with Iran.

 

We may have an opportunity here to work with Iran in a meaningful way that may actually help out our interests there as well. Instability can very easily spread, and the potential for an unstable Iraq on one side, and unstable Pakistan and Afghanistan on the other side would have to make an Iranian government nervous.

 

In fact, its race for a nuclear weapon may be more about self-survival then it is about anything else. Major powers will do whatever possible to keep a nuclear state from completely failing - which is why we never pulled the carpet out from Pakistan in the last couple years. There has to be a way to tie in a degree of increased influence in Iraq and Afghanistan with nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and increased stability in both countries.

 

I think the Afghanistan issue and the Iraq issue can pave the way for a more normal relationship with Iran if that tightrope can be walked.

[Balta1701]

Meanwhile, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) may have embarassed the U.S. and Pakistan earlier this week while this page was down by stating publicly that the U.S. was flying some of its highly unpopular unmanned predator bombing missions from airbases within Pakistan. A predator strike yesterday within Pakistan killed 28. These strikes have aroused anger throughout Pakistan because of the number of civilians they keep killing, even if they hit their target.

An old Google Earth image caught 3 predator drones sitting at an airport in Pakistan built for use by its upper classes.

[Balta1701]

Details of the law emerged after Mr Karzai was endorsed by Afghanistan's Supreme Court to stay in power until elections scheduled in August. Some MPs claimed President Karzai was under pressure from Iran, which maintains a close relationship with Afghanistan's Shias. The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband's sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least "once every four nights" when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.

 

A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: "Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband".

Sigh.

[StrangeSox]

Progress

[kapkomet]

Kind of like...

 

Change.

[StrangeSox]

When Karzai lied, nobody died!