No Surprise 2,000 Pages Obtained through FOI Reveal American Afghanistan War a Total Disaster

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerrym
No Surprise 2,000 Pages Obtained through FOI Reveal American Afghanistan War a Total Disaster

After a three year court battle, the Washington Post has obtained 2,000 pages of American government documents that show that the American war in Afghanistan was a colassal disaster costing approximately a trillion dollars, more than 150,00 lives, with corruption reigning everywhere. Shades of the Pentagon Papers about Vietnam. 

The U.S. government tried to shield the identities of the vast majority of those interviewed for the project and conceal nearly all of their remarks. The Post won release of the documents under the Freedom of Information Act after a three-year legal battle.

In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of warfare.

Click any bold text in the story to see the statement in the original document

“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing,” Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general who served as the White House’s Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers in 2015. He added: “What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.”

“If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction . . . 2,400 lives lost,” Lute added, blaming the deaths of U.S. military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department. “Who will say this was in vain?”

Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action, according to Defense Department figures. ...

Since 2001, the Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development have spent or appropriated between $934 billion and $978 billion, according to an inflation-adjusted estimate calculated by Neta Crawford, a political science professor and co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University. 

Those figures do not include money spent by other agencies such as the CIA and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for medical care for wounded veterans. 

“What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?” Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer for Bush and Obama, told government interviewers. He added, “After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.” ...

“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” Bob Crowley, an Army colonel who served as a senior counterinsurgency adviser to U.S. military commanders in 2013 and 2014, told government interviewers. “Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.” ...

“We found the stabilization strategy and the programs used to achieve it were not properly tailored to the Afghan context, and successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops and civilians,” read the introduction to one report released in May 2018. ...

The Post attempted to contact for comment everyone whom it was able to identify as having given an interview to SIGAR. Their responses are compiled in a separate article.

“We don’t invade poor countries to make them rich,” James Dobbins, a former senior U.S. diplomat who served as a special envoy to Afghanistan under Bush and Obama, told government interviewers. “We don’t invade authoritarian countries to make them democratic. We invade violent countries to make them peaceful and we clearly failed in Afghanistan.” ...

“I may be impatient. In fact I know I’m a bit impatient,” Rumsfeld wrote in one memo to several generals and senior aides. “We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave.”

“Help!” he wrote. ...

With their forthright descriptions of how the United States became stuck in a faraway war, as well as the government's determination to conceal them from the public, the cache of Lessons Learned interviews broadly resembles the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department's top-secret history of the Vietnam War. ...

“With the AfPak strategy there was a present under the Christmas tree for everyone,” an unidentified U.S. official told government interviewers in 2015. “By the time you were finished you had so many priorities and aspirations it was like no strategy at all.” ...

The Lessons Learned interviews also reveal how U.S. military commanders struggled to articulate who they were fighting, let alone why. 

Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an adversary? What about the Islamic State and the bewildering array of foreign jihadists, let alone the warlords on the CIA’s payroll? According to the documents, the U.S. government never settled on an answer. 

As a result, in the field, U.S. troops often couldn’t tell friend from foe. 

“They thought I was going to come to them with a map to show them where the good guys and bad guys live,” an unnamed former adviser to an Army Special Forces team told government interviewers in 2017. “It took several conversations for them to understand that I did not have that information in my hands. At first, they just kept asking: ‘But who are the bad guys, where are they?’ ”

The view wasn’t any clearer from the Pentagon. “I have no visibility into who the bad guys are,” Rumsfeld complained in a Sept. 8, 2003, snowflake. “We are woefully deficient in human intelligence.” ...

“Our policy was to create a strong central government which was idiotic because Afghanistan does not have a history of a strong central government,” an unidentified former State Department official told government interviewers in 2015. “The timeframe for creating a strong central government is 100 years, which we didn’t have.” ...

One unnamed executive with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), guessed that 90 percent of what they spent was overkill: “We lost objectivity. We were given money, told to spend it and we did, without reason.”

Christopher Kolenda, an Army colonel who deployed to Afghanistan several times and advised three U.S. generals in charge of the war, said that the Afghan government led by President Hamid Karzai had “self-organized into a kleptocracy” by 2006 — and that U.S. officials failed to recognize the lethal threat it posed to their strategy. 

“I like to use a cancer analogy,” Kolenda told government interviewers. “Petty corruption is like skin cancer; there are ways to deal with it and you’ll probably be just fine. Corruption within the ministries, higher level, is like colon cancer; it’s worse, but if you catch it in time, you’re probably ok. Kleptocracy, however, is like brain cancer; it’s fatal.” ...

“Our biggest single project, sadly and inadvertently, of course, may have been the development of mass corruption,” Crocker, who served as the top U.S. diplomat in Kabul in 2002 and again from 2011 to 2012, told government interviewers. He added, “Once it gets to the level I saw, when I was out there, it’s somewhere between unbelievably hard and outright impossible to fix it.” ...

None expressed confidence that the Afghan army and police could ever fend off, much less defeat, the Taliban on their own. More than 60,000 members of Afghan security forces have been killed, a casualty rate that U.S. commanders have called unsustainable. ...

“We stated that our goal is to establish a ‘flourishing market economy,’ ” said Douglas Lute, the White House’s Afghan war czar from 2007 to 2013. “I thought we should have specified a flourishing drug trade — this is the only part of the market that’s working.” ...

“All together now — quagmire!” Rumsfeld joked at a news conference on Nov. 27, 2001. ...

U.S. generals have almost always preached that the war is progressing well, no matter the reality on the battlefield. ...

“From the ambassadors down to the low level, [they all say] we are doing a great job,” Michael Flynn [yes, he was Trump's National Security Advisor later], a retired three-star Army general, told government interviewers in 2015. “Really? So if we are doing such a great job, why does it feel like we are losing?” ...

“So they all went in for whatever their rotation was, nine months or six months, and were given that mission, accepted that mission and executed that mission,”said Flynn, who later briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser, lost his job in a scandal and was convicted of lying to the FBI. “Then they all said, when they left, they accomplished that mission. Every single commander. Not one commander is going to leave Afghanistan . . . and say, ‘You know what, we didn’t accomplish our mission.’ ” ...

Last year, 3,804 Afghan civilians were killed in the war, according to the United Nations. That is the most in one year since the United Nations began tracking casualties a decade ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-...

 

 

NDPP

As always with imperial cheerleaders like WaPo -  too little too late. As always deliberately so.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

As always with imperial cheerleaders like WaPo -  too little too late. As always deliberately so.

I agree they probably could have been more critical earlier, but the idea that they consciously said "I know!! Let's help the government out by releasing a bunch of documents designed to make them look bad, but we'll do it too late to make a difference!!" is just silly.

The only way that would make sense is if they were under some external pressure to publish the papers, but didn't want to do so, and hit upon late publication as a compromise. But it's not likely that anyone, either in government or the public, was pressuring them to publish. They could have refrained from even acquiring the papers in the first place, and it's not like anyone would have noticed.

jerrym

The Afghan War Ombudsman last month admitted that the Taliban have substantially increased the territory they hold over the last three years. Some reports state they now control more than half of Afghanistan. At the same time, Afghan army desertions abound, corruption reigns and civilian deaths have hit new records. 

The Taliban have strengthened their grip in Afghanistan over the past three years, according to a new report released by the US government's own ombudsman of the war.

In its quarterly report for the US Congress, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) said that the Afghan government currently controls or influences only 55.5% of the country's districts, marking the lowest level recorded since SIGAR began tracking district control in November 2015. 

Translated into layman's terms, the report measures "control" -- in which one side runs an area -- and "influence" -- in which one side has the upper hand.

In November 2015, the Afghan government controlled 72% of districts in the country, but now controls just 56% of them. Insurgent influence or control has risen to 12.5% of districts from just 7% and approximately a third of Afghanistan is a "contested" area.

The official figures offer a glimpse into the Afghan army's loosening grip in the face of a determined, sustained Taliban insurgency and a bleak outlook for America's involvement in the war -- now in its 17th year.  ...

The challenges have been clear for the new US commander in Afghanistan, special forces veteran Gen. Scott Miller. Earlier this month, the top police and intelligence chief of the southern region of Kandahar was shot dead meters away from him during a maximum-security meeting; the gunman also injured one of Miller's top officers.  ...

An escalation in insurgent attacks and fighting between the Taliban and government forces has helped drive the number of civilian deaths this year to its highest point on record. ...

The Afghan National Security Forces (ANDSF), who are tasked with defending the war-ravaged country from a continuing insurgency, have struggled to maintain personnel -- indicating that a multi-billion dollar training program funded by the US is failing.

The ANDSF is short of roughly 40,000 personnel -- or 11% -- of its target strength of 352,000 personnel.

No explanation was provided for the drop in those numbers, although the growth of the insurgency over the past few years will probably have led to the deaths of many police or army personnel, or contributed to the decision of others to leave the forces.

The United States Department of Justice has also raised concerns about the Afghan attorney general's performance, citing corruption and "unproductive, corrupt and patronage-laden" practices.

Earlier this month, Afghans rode a wave of hope that the notoriously corrupt and inefficient political system in Afghanistan could be overhauled as they cast their ballots in a vote that had already been delayed for three years because of security concerns.  But the days leading up to the vote were marred with violence. ...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/middleeast/afghanistan-report-taliban-gai...

 

 

NDPP

Some Talk About the War in Afghanistan

https://t.co/zbYb7EVaTU

"The war was and is a racket. It has no purpose but to move money from the taxpayer towards special interests. To justify the theft politicians and military commanders have lied to the public again and again. The only way to leave Afghanistan is to leave Afghanistan..."

And if Trump tomorrow were to order US troops out of Afghanistan, which he wouldn't - the same WaPo would scream like a stuck war-pig it is, about 'betraying democracy, the people of Afghanistan, our allies, 'dead heroes' etc. etc.