The Afghan people will win - Part 11

The Obama Administration Has Completely Failed: Human Rights Lawyer on Bagram Prison

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650324,00.html

"Our client Jawed 'Jojo' Ahmad was a journalist working for the Canadian Television Network CTV. He was also taken into custody by the military and held without charge for more than a year before the US finally released him. That 'mistake' by the US government cost Jojo his life.."

military.com wrote:

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious and growing worse and without more boots on the ground the United States risks failure in a war it's been waging since shortly after the terror attacks of September 2001," Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, says in a confidential report.

"Resources [i.e., additional troops] will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.

"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating."

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out an "urgent need" to significantly revise strategy.

"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves."

In his blunt assessment of the tenacious Taliban insurgency, McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

"Are we doing the right thing?" [President Barack Obama] asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday. "Are we persuing the right strategy?"

Obama said he's asking this question now of the military regarding his plan: "how does this advance America's national security interests? How does it make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe?"

"If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward," the president continued. "But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, ... , sending a message that America is here for the duration."

http://www.military.com/news/article/mcchrystal-send-more-troops-or-fail...

[i][u]Breaking news[/u][/i]:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8277098.stm][color=blue]GOD comes out in support of insurgency - strikes down 3 NATO troops![/color][/url]

Quote:

Three French soldiers have been killed in a violent storm in north-eastern Afghanistan, the French military says.

The soldiers, serving with a parachute regiment, "died accidentally" at night in Kapisa province, officials said.

Army spokesman Christophe Prazuck said [b]one of the soldiers was hit by lightning and the other two were swept away by a fast flowing river[/b].

They haven't figured out how to blame the Taliban for that yet.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur wrote:

In the message distributed on Islamic websites, and referring to the German chancellor as 'premier,' al-Sawahiri said 'I am amazed how your premier can stand up and say the German troops are in Afghanistan in order to secure peace and security in the world.'

He added, that this was a lie, and that the Germans could only contribute to peace by withdrawing their forces from Afghanistan.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1503674.php/A...

Alter the references to "Merkel" and "Germany" with "Harper" and "Canada" and the logical consistency of the argument remains intact.

 "If we keep blowing up on the roads, I am going to stop doing development. If we stop doing development in Dand, then I believe Afghanistan and Kandahar is a project that cannot be saved."

- [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/top-soldier-lambastes-local-af.... Jonathan Vance, Canada's top military officer in Afghanistan.[/url]

Jingles, Frmsldr

I question myself often about Afghanistan; the answer is never the same. There are a variety of answers on many different levels in my view, some are personal, and others are professional.

Sorry it is not much of an answer.

Webgear wrote:

Jingles, Frmsldr

I question myself often about Afghanistan; the answer is never the same. There are a variety of answers on many different levels in my view, some are personal, and others are professional.

Sorry it is not much of an answer.

Afghanistan, a war without front lines or clear objectives. A war against an elusive enemy. It is a war that blurs the line between friend and enemy. It is a war with deep roots. Deeper than most Americans and Canadians know. The insurgents have fought for decades. First against the Russians now against the Americans and their NATO/ISAF/Northern Alliance/Afghan ANA/ANP allies.

The Afghan war is leaving questions and issues that are unanswered and unresolved.

Afghanistan: A noble cause? A shameful venture?

"Let us tell those who fought in that war [Vietnam] that we will never again ask young men to fight and possibly die in a war our government is afraid to let them win." - Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"We'll know it [victory in Afghanistan] when we see it." - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"My own judgement... quite frankly is we are not going to ever defeat the [Afghan] insurgency." - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CNN interview March 1, 2009.

This is a hard chapter in Canada's history. 2,700 Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan and 131 Canadian soldiers have died there so far.

WHY?

Not sure if this has been noted on any of the previous Afghanistan threads. I saw a cinematic showing of "Rethinking Afghanistan" at the MUCK film festival today. If you haven't seen it, it's available for viewing online. I would recommended. Warning: Contains some graphic video and photos.

As well, here is some interesting analysis by Max Elbaum of the US-based War Times - Course Adjustment Underway - Push Harder

Quote:

AFGHANISTAN: "TURNING POINT IN THE ROAD"

Meanwhile U.S. policy in Afghanistan is at a potential turning point. U.S. Commander Stanley McChrystal's assessment of conditions there was leaked to the press and it paints a blunt picture. Reporters at the Washington Post who have seen McChrystal's review say it warns that unless more U.S. troops are injected into Afghanistan during the next year, Washington's war there will likely be lost. And this was no "neutral" leak. It was a volley in the battle that is now acknowledged to be raging within and between the military brass and the Obama administration. One faction remains committed to escalation and "victory" while another, increasingly joined by a layer of congressional Democrats, believes the war is hopeless and that the U.S. should scale back its presence to the use of drones and "special operations" against Al-Qaeda and other jihadists. Obama for the last few months has seemed bent on escalation (albeit with goals more limited than "victory"). But presidential statements in the wake of an Afghan election that spotlighted the utter corruption and illegitimacy of the U.S.-backed regime indicate he may be rethinking things.

It is thus an urgent moment for maximum pressure for U.S. withdrawal. Conditions are more favorable than before to make a difference: the majority of the U.S. public has turned against continuing the war, and even some conservatives have started saying it's time to get out...

Jingles wrote:

On the radio today they played Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance". They dedicated it to the Canadian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.....

 

What was the context as to why Give Peace a Chance was dedicated to the troops?

Was it to give the listeners the (false) impression that the troops are engaging in a U.N. peacekeeping mission and that "We Support the Troops"?

Was it meant as a war protest - as sarcasm?

Was it meant, at least, to encourage the troops to think critically about the war or, at most, to oppose and resist the war?

Jingles wrote:

It was meant as "SUPPORT THE TROOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPSSSS!!"

There is no irony now. There is no resistance.

Well, there you have it. The War Party and the military mafia are rewriting history. Peace songs are being corrupted and perverted to support war. How obscene!

Great news for those who support the insurgency:

[size=20]Heavy U.S. losses in Afghan battle[/size]

Quote:

The attack is thought to have taken place in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan, and lasted several hours.

[b]About 300 militants[/b] attacked one outpost at the foot of a hill, before turning their fire on a US base on higher ground, attacking from two sides, a provincial police chief said. [...]

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while [b]eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed[/b]," the Nato statement said.

It was the [b]worst loss coalition troops have suffered since August 2008[/b], when 10 French troops were killed in an ambush in Kabul province.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8289200.stm][color=red]Read more here.[/color][/url]

I actually posted that news [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/afghan-people-wi... days ago upthread[/color][/url] - but I didn't realize the murder victims were kids. Thanks for this update, frmrsldr.

Any statement of sympathy for the victims' families from any of our political leaders yet?

Unionist wrote:

Great news for those who support the insurgency:

[size=20]Heavy U.S. losses in Afghan battle[/size]

Quote:

The attack is thought to have taken place in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan, and lasted several hours.

[b]About 300 militants[/b] attacked one outpost at the foot of a hill, before turning their fire on a US base on higher ground, attacking from two sides, a provincial police chief said. [...]

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while [b]eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed[/b]," the Nato statement said.

It was the [b]worst loss coalition troops have suffered since August 2008[/b], when 10 French troops were killed in an ambush in Kabul province.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8289200.stm][color=red]Read more here.[/color][/url]

Here's a very similar battle. When I read such accounts, I can make no conclusion other than the war is lost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/03/AR200910...

The Netherlands' history in Afghanistan is similar to Canada's. Hopefully, the Netherlands will provide an example for Germany, the U.K., the U.S.A., Canada and the other countries that have troops in Afghanistan.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2374894.ece/Dutch_troops_look_set...

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: Human Rights Violations in Afghanistan

http://www.alqimmah.net/showthread.php?p=20100

"It is a pity that the Human Rights Watch, the Amnesty International, the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations are tight-lipped over what is happening in Afghanistan. When we try to inform the people of the world about the bloodshed, the violence, the genocide and the racial cleansing unleashed by Pentagon and its allies [CANADA!] in Afghanistan, they suffocate our voice...

The war in Afghanistan is not between democracy and terror - as they call it - but it is between freedom and tyranny, independence and colonialism, human values and dictatorship.."

Looks like it may have been the G-G who got the ball rolling on "Give Peace a Chance". 

Anyone remember when the Bank of Montreal used "The Times They are a Changin'" for one of their ad campaigns*? The right is so bankrupt that they have to steal songs. 

*It was in 1996. I'm pretty sure it was Billy Idol who sang the song at the massive Days of Action in Toronto to reclaim it from the BMO. It was one of those "moments" for me. 

Sex and Security in Afghanistan

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/Kj06Df03.html

"According to the US State Department's 2008 Trafficking in Persons Report, Afghanistan is a destination for woman and girls from China, Iran and Tajikistan trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Afghan children are also trafficked within the country for sexual exploitation. Gordon was especially alarmed because the program manager himself, the top manager in Kabul overseeing the guard force, had been identified as a participant in these unlawful activities.."

Earlier there was discussion concerning who the Taliban, who (the relevant) insurgent groups and commanders were. Here is a short piece of information on this as well as whether there should be a surge or disengagement (exit strategy) and whether the emphasis should be on Afghanistan, Pakistan or both:

David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker wrote:

The officials argued that while Al Qaeda was a foreign body, the Taliban could not be wholly removed from Afghanistan because they were too ingrained in the country. Moreover, the forces often described as Taliban are actually an amalgamation of militants that includes local warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network or others driven by local grievances rather than jihadist ideology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08prexy.html?_r=2&hp

Robert H Reid wrote:

... a number of key figures within the broad coalition that is fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Chief among them are Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin, whose Pakistan-based forces are battling the Americans and their allies across eastern Afghanistan. NATO officals say the Haqqani group [network], among the most feared fighters in Afghanistan, may have taken part in the Saturday assault on a U.S. outpost in Nuristan province that left eight American soldiers dead.

Another faction ... is led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former [Afghan] prime minister and rebel commander in the war against the Soviets in the 1980s.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/10/06/al-qaida-showing-smaller-presence-in-...

Jason Ditz wrote:

The Taliban's attemps to reassure are likely aimed mostly at the NATO allies with smaller commitments, as the US seems to continue the war more or less forever. Yet the Taliban's message may be a powerful one, considering that following the end of the Soviet occupation Afghan terrorists weren't swarming through the streets of Moscow, and the war's continuation is being sold principally on the premise that a pullout would lead to more attacks in Europe and North America.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/afghan-taliban-insist-they-pose-no-th...

Unionist]</p> <p>Great news for those who support the insurgency:</p> <p>[size=20]Heavy U.S. losses in Afghan battle[/size]</p> <p>[quote wrote:

The attack is thought to have taken place in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan, and lasted several hours.

[b]About 300 militants[/b] attacked one outpost at the foot of a hill, before turning their fire on a US base on higher ground, attacking from two sides, a provincial police chief said. [...]

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while [b]eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed[/b]," the Nato statement said.

It was the [b]worst loss coalition troops have suffered since August 2008[/b], when 10 French troops were killed in an ambush in Kabul province.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8289200.stm][color=red]Read more here.[/color][/url]

The battle was even worse (for U.S. forces) than originally reported:

Todd Pitman wrote:

But the worst of the battle came when attackers were able to "breach the perimeter of one of the bases and get inside, ... They got a foothold on the base. But coalition and Afghan national army forces consolidated their positions, retook the parts of the base the enemy was on and re-established security."

Close-quarters combat would have been likely at such a time - a rarity in both Afghan and Iraq wars for U.S. troops.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/us-insurgents-breached-base-during-af...

Can anyone say, "Dien Bien Phu"?

Well it is agreed that the Taliban cannot be "defeated" in the normal military sense, as in surrendering and laying down their arms. That should have been obvious before 2001.

All this talk from McChrystal and Obama and others about "a new strategy" in Afghanistan, but they don't suggest much that is new. There was a brief hint last month about being more "intimate" with the Afghans, as in getting out of the big bases and spending more time in the villages, instead of just running sorties during the day and then scampering back to the base.

That is the only strategy that I would support now: have small units of maybe 50 or 100 western and Afghan troops actually living in the villages and in sections of the larger centers. That would be much more dangerous but we are not there to limit our own casualties. It might even attract Taliban attacks in the villages, which would be dangerous for the locals, but at least we would be doing real battle if those attacks do come. It is very different that going out and looking for Taliban... this idea would make them come to us, and that can be a great advantage because the one on the offensive is generally more vulnerable [unless they are more well armed, which the Taliban are not].

 It would basically involve living in the villages. If the troops were around ALL THE TIME, it would be hard to plant IEDs in the roads.

Also, when things are quiet, when not under attack, we could be doing reconstruction. Build, and protect, the schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc. When benefits start to show up, the locals will get onside with us. We have done piss all so far for reconstruction, with the excuse that the troops are too busy looking for Taliban... so stop doing that, it isn't working, there is an endless source of Taliban, DUH!!

The closest thing to "victory" that can be had in Afghanistan is to simply convince more Afghan youth to reject the Taliban, and be on the side of moderates. The Taliban constantly recruit, and they are currently offering more opportunities - and pay - for Afghan youth than the youth can find anywhere else. There is nothing to do there now, but if reconstruction and schooling were going strong, that is what they would do. We could even hire them as labourers for projects, and the military would be there to protect them.

It is a practical matter - when the Afghans start seeing benefits from the western occupation, they will side with us, and be against the Taliban. They will be more willing to turn the Taliban in when they come to the villages and cities to recruit.

Nobody tried doing anything like that in Vietnam.

We're missing two points about Afghanistan: 1. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy is our exit strategy. 2. It is an admission of defeat.

We've lost sight of the fact that Gen. McChrystal's strategy is to abandon the small firebases located in the remote countryside and to hunker down in the large cities and urban areas.

First we abandon the countryside to the insurgents. The insurgents grow strong and constantly harass us in the cities. Then we abandon our last bases in the cities. When we abandon the cities - we abandon Afghanistan: The cities are isolated, surrounded and then attacked and captured. Just like Dien Bien Phu - one at a time. Even if the insurgents are unable to win the war this way, our government will fail to win not only the hearts and minds of the Afghans, but also those of their citizens at home and our soldiers in the field. Widespread protest against the war is another way the war will end. Either way or both, defeat is simply a question of time:

Deutsche Presse-Agentur wrote:

Kabul - Two US military outposts in Nuristan province in eastern Afghanistan have been closed six days after they came under heavy attack by the Taliban.

The redeployment of the troops in Kamdesh district had been planned before the attacks, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement on Friday.

ISAF said the move was in line with the new strategy of its commander, US General Stanley McChrystal, which involves withdrawing soldiers from remote regions and deploying them in densely populated areas.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1506091.ph...

Looks like General McChrystal is becoming desperate:

Jason Ditz wrote:

As officials in the Obama Administration continue to press for smaller escalations, top US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChristal is upping the ante on his request, now calling for over 60,000 additional troops to continue the war.

The news comes as quite a surprise, as previously the general had been reported to be calling for an additional 45,000 troops, but had also said that 40,000 more troops was the absolute minimum needed.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/09/gen-mcchrystal-now-seeking-over-60000...

Sadly however, it looks like the reaction of Democrats is evenly split:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/09/democrats-split-on-afghan-escalation/

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

no surprise this, still in some countries there'd be an election...

And if there were, what would the NDP's position be? As I understand Layton's position, he's already onside with a "non-combat" role for Canada after 2011. Here's what he told George W. Obomba [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/open-letter-to-president-obama]back in February[/url]:

Quote:

[b]Canada can help you in charting a new path in Afghanistan, though not with combat troops.[/b] Our troops have suffered the highest casualty rate, per soldier, of all the allied forces in Afghanistan. As Canadian retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie has pointed out, "The painful truth is that Canada will not be capable of remaining in Afghanistan [b]in a combat role[/b] beyond 2011." (my emphasis)

We should know who we are fighting in Afghanistan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/world/asia/11mullah.html?_r=1&hp

A Letter from Afghanistan:

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/10/12/a-letter-from-afghanistan-ba...

"Together you're making one of my dearest hopes come true: international attention and lawsuits for the Bagram victims. I do hope that not only the foreigners will benefit, but also and maybe mostly, the perfectly innocent random Afghans, stopped at checkpoints and too poor to bail themselves out, denounced by a neighbor who has an eye on their land or their daughter, sold for a "reward", or others who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

According to the ACLU, there are some 50,000 persons, who, over the past years, have been arrested in Afghanistan by the foreign armies."

I just sat through a nauseating piece of CBC war propaganda, where Anna-Marie Tremendous gave a puffball "interview" of the Brigadier General (sic) in charge of the Canadian Occupation. If I didn't know better*, I'd say that DND Public Affairs scripted the whole thing.

Anyway, the gist of the interview was that the Mission Is A Success, and that We're There To Help The People, and We Must Stay Until The Job Is Finished, and Support The Troooooopsss!

For Chrissakes, whatever you do Anna-Marie. don't ask what that means!

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I have been trying to think of when our military people began to be in the game of politics.  It seems to me that up till a few years ago you never heard an interview with an general on active duty.  We certainly have come a long way on the road to a military state akin to the Excited States where their military people have now taken the right to criticize the Pres.

__________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

General Rick Hillier started it. In 2005, Canada was ruled by a military dictatorship when Gen. Hillier acted as head of state and signed an international treaty with the Karzai government concerning the handover of Afghan PoWs by the Canadian military to Afghan authorities.

The Paul Martin administration did nothing about it. The Harper administration fully endorses it as the treaty is incorporated as part of Canada's foreign and military policy in Afghanistan. This policy got the Harper admin. in trouble in late 2007 early 2008. Today it is rearing its ugly head again as a Commission is looking into the report findings of a Military Police investigation on the issue.