BRUSSELS – There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory.

London — THE highly decorated general sat opposite his commander in chief and explained the problems his army faced fighting in the hills around Kabul: “There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” he said. “Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centers, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize.

Continue reading “Journal: US Naivete In Afghanistan, Neglecting Iraq”

2009/10/282009/10/28

Journal: Afghanistan & America’s Loss of Integrity I

Government, Military

Foreign Service Office & Former Marine Resigns

Full Explanation Letter Available Online

This officer's letter is both extraordinary and common–it is extraordinary in its demonstration of integrity and common sense, and common in that we all feel this way less a few craven individuals so enamoured of power they have forgotten where they left their integrity.

2009/10/28

Journal: Afghanistan & America’s Loss of Integrity II

05 Civil War, Government, Military

Blood for nothing

GIs die while Taliban thrives

Ralph Peters

October 28, 2009

AFGHANISTAN isn't com pletely hopeless, just use less. It's a strategic joke with a bloody punch line. Even if everything went perfectly in Afghanistan — which it won't — the results would be virtually meaningless: Our mortal enemies (above all, al Qaeda) have dug in elsewhere, from Pakistan to Somalia. … From line doggies up to bird colonels (and even a few junior generals), there's a powerful sense that we're throwing away soldiers' lives for theories that just don't work. We enforce rules of engagement that kill our own troops to avoid alienating villagers who actively support the Taliban and celebrate our deaths. …

Iraq made sense to me. The stakes there were (and are) enormous. But Afghanistan's a strategic vacuum that sucks in resources and lives to no sensible purpose. By propping up President Karzai's government of thieves and attempting to force our vision on Afghanistan we've rescued a defeated Taliban from oblivion. So much for COIN theory.

Killing our nation's enemies always makes sense. Sacrificing our troops for the Pentagon's equivalent of Beanie Babies is despicable. Won't a single four-star general stand up and be counted?

2009/10/212009/10/21

Journal: Strategic Analysis & Culture Matter

08 Wild Cards, 10 Security, 11 Society, Government, Military, Peace Intelligence

Full Story Online

The Afghanistan Problem

The huge cultural misunderstandings between Western forces and the Afghan people make it unlikely any counterinsurgency mission in the countryside will succeed.

By Gilles Dorronsoro

In the countryside, Westerners are essentially perceived as corrupt and threatening to traditional Afghan or Muslim values. Contrary to our self-perception, the villagers see the foreigners as the main providers of insecurity. The presence of coalition troops means IEDs, ambushes and airstrikes, and consequently a higher probability of being killed, maimed or robbed of a livelihood. Any incident quickly reinforces the divide between locals and outsiders, and the Afghan media provide extensive and graphic coverage of botched airstrikes and injured civilians.
Continue reading “Journal: Strategic Analysis & Culture Matter”

2009/10/202009/10/20

Journal: Multinational Operations 101

04 Inter-State Conflict, 05 Civil War, 10 Security, Methods & Process, Military

Italian Troops Denied Access To Intelligence Reports, Minister Says

Richard Owen TimesOnline (UK) October 20, 2009

Italy is denied full access to intelligence assessments in Afghanistan, a restriction that affects its troops' ability to operate safely and hampers allied co-ordination, the Italian Foreign Minister said yesterday.

The lack of co-ordination and pooled intelligence between Nato forces was a widespread problem, Franco Frattini said. “We have repeatedly raised this issue,” he added. …

Mr Frattini said the problem was that intelligence was “the only resource not put at the disposal of everyone”. He said that in Herat, which is under Italian and Spanish command, there was excellent co-ordination with Spanish forces, “but if I want to leave Herat to go to Kandahar it is another matter”.

Continue reading “Journal: Multinational Operations 101”

2009/10/202009/10/20

Journal: How NOT to Decide on Afghanistan

02 China, 04 Inter-State Conflict, 05 Civil War, 05 Iran, 06 Russia, 08 Wild Cards, 10 Security, Ethics, Government, Methods & Process, Military, Policy, Reform, Strategy, Threats

The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan

Michael Gaddy LouRockwell.com October 20, 2009Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of our quest for empire over the past six decades realizes that Obama’s contemplation of whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply those who control him providing Obama with the opportunity to look “presidential.” The decision to send additional troops was reached prior to the situational comedy of General McChrystal’s leaked “confidential report” to the Washington Post and Obama’s National Security Advisor’s public admonishment of McChrystal’s failure to follow the chain of command. All of this is nothing but a well-rehearsed, though poorly camouflaged hoax. Additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan within a very short period of time and Obama really has no say in the matter. The question is: why?

Continue reading “Journal: How NOT to Decide on Afghanistan”

2009/10/18

Journal: $400 per gallon gas in Afghanistan

03 Economy, 08 Wild Cards, 10 Security, Ethics, Military

Full Story Online

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan

By Roxana Tiron

The Hill

10/15/09

The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan. The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.

. . . . . .

“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”

The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.