Here are two opposing views on how to win in Afghanistan:
1. An Air Force general's view from the Top Down
2. Army Special Forces major's view from the bottom up
SOF Major Strategy for AF
My comment: While I think the major is far closer to reality than the general, I would argue that the Pentagon, which is run by generals, does not have a clue how to go about executing the major's strategy, if they chose to do so — and they won't. But that might not matter, because, paradoxically, I think the major's excellent appreciation of the Afghan conundrum illustrates indirectly why we need to get out of Afghanistan asap.
There are at least two reasons why this is so:
First, the military has no clue how to execute the kind of strategy advocated by the major. That is why General McChrystal asked for a large increase in conventional troops. The surge just approved by the President shows (a) that the military is completely wedded to an approach that uses a large US footprint, centralized command and control, and a reliance on heavy firepower, like the AF general's predilection for bombing; and (b) the politicians are wedded to the concept that strengthening an already corrupt centralized Afghan gov't and Afghan national army and national police forces will “win the hearts and minds” of the rural population.
Note that the weakest parts of the major's excellent analysis occur when he tries to reconcile support of the Afghan central government and Afghan national army with his decentralized tribal strategy — they can not be reconciled except through tribal mediation processes that start a village level jirgas and slowly work upwards to “national” level loya jirga. But that traditional approach would result in a repudiation of the central gov't as it is now constituted.
Second. I am not sure there will ever be enough time to make his strategy work on a war-winning scale. As the major makes clear, we are struggling to deal with a culture that is based on profoundly important concepts of honor and revenge. Planners in Washington and Kabul are trying to shape the cultural DNA of a rural tribal society that is the product of a 3000 years of cultural evolution. This culture may seem primitive to strategists in Washington trying to export the our way of life (not the major, who clearly understands that strategy must be shaped by the mores of the Afghan culture), but this tribal culture is in fact a highly evolved in a complex relationship to its environment. The problem as I see it is that too much water has gone over the dam since we foolishly began trying to cynically manipulate the value systems of this tribal culture by inflating the Islamic crazies in late 1970s (with goal of making it more likely that Sov's would invade and enmesh the Sovs in their Vietnam-like quagmire).
There's nothing inherently wrong with the analysis of Al Qaeda (I just glanced at it, if you wish I can read in detail today). The PROBLEM lies not so much in how we analyze support to terrorism (state, crime, other) but rather in the way we analyze (or rather do NOT analyze) EVERYTHING.
Here's what I have thrown together for you, in six pages with links.
One of the several scandalous revelations of the Climategate e-mails is that this claim of consensus is a lie. Never mind the skeptics: It turns out many of the scientists in the CRU inner circle had doubts and disagreements about their data, methodology and conclusions, and often bickered with one another about defects in their project.
A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
The recent revelations — now known as Climategate — of how proponents of man-made global warming fudged and manipulated temperature data at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the U.K. to back the IPCC claim confirms the skepticism of many scientists for more than a decade.
Among scientists voicing concerns over the IPCC claim was Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and mathematician at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
Don King, are you listening? And if the world's most hair-raising promoter won't take this one on, then I officially volunteer to set it up.
Al Gore, who is making the rounds to hawk his latest book, gave the back of his hand to Sarah Palin when Andrea Mitchell asked him about the ex-Alaska governor's dismissal of “junk science” surrounding the Copenhagen climate change summit this week.
. . . . . .
Ingraham: But what if it's an Oxford-style, proper debate format. I mean, he’s going to chicken out. I mean, if you challenge him to a debate, do you actually think he would accept it?
Palin: I don’t know, I don't know. Oh, he wouldn’t want to lower himself, I think, to, you know, my level to debate little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla.”
No time to be shy, “little” Sarah. Shooting spitballs and then hiding behind your computer screen isn't going to get you into the White House. But nailing Gore's carcass but good – that's the stuff that conservative dreams are made of.
. . . . . . .
So as 2010 comes to a close, we deserve a break. A prime time one-on-one showdown – the people deserve this one. Bill it as “The Thrilla From Wasilla” versus “The Tennessee Tornado” – or whatever – and donate the proceeds to charity. But bring it on.
Phi Beta Iota: Tip of the Hat to Coop's Corner for this lovely public interest notice.
As I have previously shown, speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis. And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets. Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives…
Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency.
The COP15 problem is not climate change skepticism, it is anti nuclear fanaticism
Paradoxically, the AGW skeptics are not the most serious enemies of AGW mitigation. The eco-extremests are. If AGW skeptics are basically in denial about AGW, they are not in denial about the essential role of nuclear power in a future of energy. Many AGW skeptics harbor rational doubts about the use of renewables in future energy schemes. The Green mainstream remains incapable of anything but a dogmatic hostility toward nuclear power. This anti-nuclear attitude, leads anti-nuclear environmentalists to hugely exaggerate the liabilities of nuclear power as well as engage in self-deceptive denials of the liabilities of renewable generation systems.
Houston Chronicle Full Story Online
No denying: In resolving questions about global-warming research, let’s follow the science
We can identify at least two areas where clear answers are required:
• • The methodology. If there was a demonstrable effort made by CRU scientists or others to change data to guide it toward a preferred result, this should be identified and condemned by the scientific community. A consensus built around faulty data is as useless as one built around the premise that water freezes at 50 degrees Fahrenheit rather than 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The scientifically observable facts will not change to accommodate a faulty consensus.
• • The claims that peer review boards have been set up to deliberately exclude climate change skeptics must be answered. The strength of the scientific method rests on full faith in peer review. It must not be rigged.
Ingraham: But what if it's an Oxford-style, proper debate format. I mean, he’s going to chicken out. I mean, if you challenge him to a debate, do you actually think he would accept it?
