Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch - The Welcome Aboard Version Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at World Politics Review, the ever astute Judah Grunstein tries to get a handle on the various reports trickling out from McChrystal's policy review in Afghanistan and finds himself confused:

With a signfiicant increase in resources, we might achieve minimalist stabilization goals in Afghanistan that, it is hoped, will indirectly damage al-Qaida's operational capacity, which itself is located elsewhere. That is not the Afghanistan War as it was originally declared in 2001, and bears only a surface resemblance to the Obama administration's rebranding of it in March.

 . . . From top to bottom -- that is, from the strategic objectives to the tactial methods -- our approach to this war seems like a tangle of contradictions and confusion. And that's mainly because, eight years in, we still have not determined what war we're fighting. Which means we're unlikely to win the war we find ourselves in.

At Attackerman, Spencer begins to see the light:

Perhaps I'm misreading what it is the people around McChrystal are saying, but it seems fair to say that the balance of evidence favors an interpretation that Afghanistan strategy is coming unmoored from the actual objectives of the war, and the actual interests at stake, and the White House is being either deluded or outright dishonest about what's happening. "Our goal is to deal with the terrorist elements that are in that country and are making life for Afghans and potentially life for millions throughout the world more dangerous through their activities," Robert Gibbs said from the White House podium today. That is simply not what's coming from McChrystal's circle. 

But Sam Roggeveen of Lowy Interpreter (sorry I called you lowly!) wins the post as he wonders if the US and NATO would ever undertake the current mission in Afghanistan if not for the fact that we are already there:

Would we now advocate an invasion and long-term occupation of Afghanistan to stabilise the Indian Ocean region, reduce the chances of nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, disrupt drug supplies, protect energy sources, substitute for the lack of a regional security framework and discourage Pakistani cooperation with the Taliban? More to the point, have any of these problems been reduced or made more manageable by the Western presence in Afghanistan? How?

This is a critically important point. There seems to be a mindset in Washington that now that Bush is gone from office we can do a reset in Afghanistan and finally get things right. Wrong. There is no question that Geroge Bush sqaundered the last 7 1/2 years in Afghanistan. They didn't finish the mission, they didn't devote enough resources, they didn't build up a credible Afghan Army, they had a lousy policy on drug eradication and I could go on. But, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you go to war with the Afghanistan you have, not the Afghanistan you want. Right now, the Afghanistan we have is ill-suited for a robust counter-insurgency mission and the mismatch between our stretegy and our tactics is growing wider every day.

Comments

[Gerard Cefalu]

2 July, 2009

Letter to our country,

As a 26 year Air force Vietnam veteran, I think the way we are fighting this war is wrong at many levels. In Vietnam, we underestimated the staying power, skill, ingenuity and willingness to die of the enemy. Quite simply they outlasted us in a long protracted war of attrition in which they were willing to sacrifice considerably more casualties than the United States. North Vietnam taught us how the wars of the future were going to be fought. In order to win we had to hit them with overwhelming force then move on to the next base camp. Occupying Arab countries for long periods of time is suicidal in this new equation since our culture and religions are so diametrically incompatible to each other. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan require the ability to gather intelligence, kill the enemy, better the lives of the people and set up self rule, and get out as soon as possible. Remember, we had allot of success in "Vietnamization". The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan require the ability to kill the enemy, better the lives of the people, set up self rule then get out as soon as possible. Iraq took six years too long while it bankrupted our treasury and will to win long term.

In order to do the above and strategically win the war on terror, it's important to have a draft (without college deferments). Presently, less than one percent, (military), of the population of this nation bears the burden and sacrifices which is morally wrong. This has weakened our military and created a false sense of security, while the rest of the country hardly knows a war is going on. Our country has never fought a war without a draft which rightly places the burden on all Americans. Moreover, we have never used Reserve and National Guard forces in place of a draft, further weakening our home emergency needs.

My friends, we should have dealt with these important issues six years ago but surrendered to the political expedience of the President and military leaders who should have remembered the lessons of Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan and any standing army since Alexander the Great.
My son is on his third tour of duty to the desert. How many more sons and daughters will have to serve innumerable combat tours before the rest of the sleeping public wakes up to the seriousness of the situation. Our enemy has millions of fresh recruits to draw from while we have exhausted the military heroes who are just trying to do their job. How much longer are we going to fill the VA hospitals with new young injured veterans that have to compete with limited VA funds to treat veterans of previous wars? As they slowly bleed us. I hope we wake up before it’s too late. For the third time I will not be sleeping much until my son comes home. How can YOU sleep?

Gerard Cefalu USAF RETIRED

[Taylor]

Wow. I was 100 percent behind Mr. Cefalu until his second paragraph. What in the world makes you think that a draft will achieve the goals in the Middle East that it couldn't in Vietnam? If the armed forces are in need of more people, they can offer more money out of the absurd proportion of our federal discretionary budget that they receive.

The original post, which I wholeheartedly agree with, was really what I wanted to comment on, though. I feel as though this entire COIN strategy, trying to be as comprehensive as possible and essentially re-tool the entire state/society of Afghanistan and focusing on the well-being of its relatively meager population, is a gigantic waste of time.

We went to Afghanistan, essentially, in retribution for 9/11. We wanted the Taliban out of power and the al-Qaida network eradicated. To date, we haven't yet firmly or permanently accomplished either. As I understand it, we're considering talking to the Taliban (a.k.a. recognizing and acknowledging their staying power as an authority in the state) and still looking for al-Qaida's mastermind and number two.

Essentially, rather than getting fast, light and deadly and going after these people like the criminals they are and not worrying so much about the population as much so that we can get it done and get out, we're massing forces and sending in civilians and essentially getting ready for a long-term, full-scale occupation. Not good.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

[Sesli Sohbet]

The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

Thank You. For sesliChat seslisohbet Sesli Chat

[buy viagra]

Teams from the CIA's Special Activities Division(SAD) were the first U.S. forces to enter Afghanistan and begin combat operations. They were soon joined by U.S. Army Special Forces from the 5th Special Forces Group and other units from USSOCOM. These combined forces led the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan with minimal loss to American lives. They did this without the need for U.S. Military conventional forces.

[ghd]

GHD IV mini styler has a safety feature that gives you peace of mind, by turning itself off if it is left unattended for 30 minutes. The unique digital technology of GHD hair straightener means that the temperature is automatically controlled even quicker for even better styling.

Creating tight curls, flicks and waves as well as the perfect straight. The ideal styling tool for urban angels with short hair, men's hair and fringes.

price includes: ghd IV salon styler,ghd purple roll bag.

product features:
Auto sleep mode(A built in safety feature that gives you peace of mind by turning off if the ghd IV styler is left unallended for 30 minutes.)
Universal voltage(So that you can use your styler in any country without an adaptor.)
Advanced ceramic heaters(The ultimate heating technology for the ultimate shine and style creation.)
All our products are cheap,if you want to find cheap ghd,come here and that is right.

If you want to find GHD hair products,you can write GHD straightener,GHD hair straighteners,GHD straightners,GHD hair,straighteners GHD in google browse.

[no fax cash advance]

In business, one of the challenges is making sure that your product is the easiest to experience and complete a sale.

[program indir]

teşekkür ederim çok güzel bir siteniz var.