Afghanistan, in Today's News 02.09.10

Afghanistan. Afghan President Karzai strikes one as the type who will say anything, regardless of the truthfulness, to please those who have authority over him. Everyone probably knows this type from work. He or she is the one, when questioned by their responsibility, who will quickly think up some seemingly rational answer that has no basis in reality, just to get rid of the questioner.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Karzai is now bringing up the idea of a draft in Afghanistan. The WSJ, of course, gives this idea credence. But, come on. This is a country where the central government is isolated and controls only the capital, Kabul, and maybe a few other locations. This is a country that just arrested a colonel for (WSJ) "helping to store, distribute and install explosives around Mahmud-Raqi, the capital of Kapisa province." The WSJ further reports that the colonel was involved in bribery and corruption involving road projects in the province, and that others in the Kapisa government were suspected of the same.

Karzai thinks he can have a draft in such a situation!

But it is all a ruse. Karzai is just trying to say the right things. He said that with a draft within five years the Afghan forces would be sufficient to guarantee that the country's security would "no longer [be] a burden of the shoulders of the international community."

And so, that means the international community can withdraw in five years, right? Wrong. (WSJ) "Still, he said foreign troop would be needed to help battle hard-core militants because the 'war on terrorism...is an issue separate from this security arrangement in Afghanistan.'"

No wonder Karzai is President with such an ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he seeks to please the United States by appearing to be doing something (the draft proposal) to secure the country. But, on the other hand, the US and others will have to stay because the issue of the war on terrorism is international. Bottom line: you guys in the US will have to carry the burden of the war.

What a guy!!

************

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US general in Afghanistan, (WSJ) "told reporters that the success of a coming offensive in the Taliban-infested south hinges on whether troops and civilian aid workers can quickly get schools, hospitals and public services running." 

Aside from being a convenient CYA statement, his remarks are a bit peculiar. Does he mean that the existing schools, hospitals and public services will be knocked out in the coming offensive? Local inhabitants are always receptive to having their native institutions shut down. (Sarcasm.) 

If McChystal means what he says, the coming offensive will drive the population right into the arms of the Taliban, if they aren't there already.

********

The Wall Street Journal has a 23-inch article with a huge picture today praising the efforts of the US and Afghanistan to enlist veteran officers of the anti-Soviet battles of the 1980's. This is an interesting action because the rest of the officers of the Afghan army are the very ones who fought the anti-Soviet insurgents!

Somehow the US thinks this will work. After all, the US brought them together them together for a "senior Afghan National Army command course," taught by the US and the French. Now surely everyone knows that the wisdom of the Americans and the French can overcome years of these officers trying to kill each other and overcome centuries of tribal conflict between Pastuns and Tajiks. (Sarcasm.)

The US is in a dream world that will never settle or win this war.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 02.05.10

Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal, the head of US and allied forces in Afghanistan, is undoubtedly a good man and an honorable soldier. But he gets himself in trouble when he enters into the world of politics, and especially when he tries to make nice to the Obama administration.

In a moment of candor a few months ago McChrystal described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating." This assessment caused Obama no end of dismay and trouble. The Obama team let McChrystal know that he had better change his mind and say so.

Yesterday, McChrystal held a small media conference where, according to the Wall Street Journal, he said "he no longer believes the battlefield situation there [in Afghanistan] is deteriorating." How does he back up this assertion? "I'm not prepared to draw it on a map; I'm not prepared to give you numbers. But I'm prepared to tell you what I see. And what I feel gives me that sense." [!!!!]

This is really pitiable. First note that he only says the battlefield situation is not deteriorating. No mention is made of the Afghan government which is corrupt, completely isolated, and hanging by an American-supported thread. Also note that in a war like Afghanistan there is no such thing as a "battlefield."

Next, McChrystal's statement that things are not deteriorating comes a week or so after the Afghan government postponed elections because they feared what the results might show. Also, the capital, Kabul, was rocked about two weeks ago by an day-long Taliban attack on the center of the city. Other attacks have occurred recently that are notable by the obvious Taliban stratagem of attacking where the US isn't.

And so, McChrystal is correct in one sense. The situation is not deteriorating. It would collapse of its own power were it not for the American military presence.

Also, it is a commentary on the state of the American civilization when a general is pressured to make a statement that is patently untrue just to make sure the President looks good. 

The Obama strategy seems to be to squeeze the Taliban so they will agree to negotiate a settlement. Thus Obama is appreciative to McChrystal for saying the US is doing well. 

The truth, however, is that the Obama-squeeze-tactic won't work. He has no power to bring pressure on the Taliban, because the Taliban is always a step or two ahead of him. They strike where they know they can win. And they know that time is on their side. As time marches on, the US military spending continues to get out of hand, the left wing of Obama's political party puts increasing pressure on him, and the American public becomes more and more war-weary.

And so, Obama finds himself in an increasingly untenable position. And a fawning statement by McChrystal will not change things.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 09.24.09

Afghanistan. The cryptocracy has decided that the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, which the United States installed in office, is not up to the task of winning the war with the Taliban.

As the Afghan situation deteriorates, Obama is faced with a crucial decision: to send in more troops, to stand and fight to the end, or to pull out. Obama chose none of the above. He decided to do another review of the American war strategy.

The first step in this review, it seems, is to change the administration in Afghanistan. The Wall Street Journal today has a major article (page A11) on Obama's new course. A key quote: "Senior administration officials said they had viewed the [national Afghan] elections [held a few weeks ago] as the first step in rebuilding Afghanistan, but that Mr. Karzai squandered the opportunity."

"U.S. officials have also tried to support members of the Afghan cabinet they believe are clean and effective, such as Agricultural Minister Mohammed Asif Rahimi."

"After [American commander] Gen. McChrystal's team took over in June, its members were stunned by the extent of corruption they found..."

So, if you are President Karzai, it probably would be a good idea to be aware of who is standing behind you.

Needless to say, Obama's decision to switch 'partners' in Afghanistan is a futile one. The switch is simply a way of looking like something is being done, but the underlying reality stays the same: US prestige is at a low point, the government is discredited, and the Taliban are making significant advances.

The key decisions regarding Afghanistan still sit there awaiting resolution. All Obama is doing is gaining a little time by strategizing and switching regimes. But the more time goes by, the more difficult will be the solution. Obama faces a situation where no matter what he decides, he will face opposition.

******

A note to Karzai and others who makes deals with the cryptocracy: By no means does the crytpocracy view a deal as establishing a partnership. No, the deal is solely one of the cryptocracy's using someone for temporary purposes. As soon as the purposes are over or as soon as the dealmaker does something the cryptocracy doesn't like, the cryptocracy will turn on the dealmaker like a mad dog. And with no qualms of conscience and without any thank-yous for services rendered, they will dispose of the dealmaker.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 09.01.09

Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, issued his strategic assessment of the war today.

Here's the key quote from the Wall Street Journal article: "Gen. Stanley McChrystal said conditions on the ground were 'serious,' but he expressed confidence the war could still be won if the U.S. and its allies better coordinate their efforts and focus more heavily on protecting the Afghan population from Taliban violence and intimidation."

Better coordination!! Yeah, that'll work!!!

The U.S. policy makers are slowly coming to grips with the realization that the U.S. has no hope of winning this war. Obama has to figure out a way of declaring victory and getting out, before the U.S. armed forces are thrown out.

By the way, this protecting the Afghan population theme is just plain nuts, and one suspects that the commander knows it. Perhaps he has studied the Vietnam war where this tactic was tried and failed miserably.

Right now, it probably would be a good idea for McChrystal to study Custer's military career to avoid similar mistakes.