Afghanistan, in Today's News 04.05.10

Afghanistan. Today's Wall Street Journal headline (pg A14): "Karzai Slams the West Again". 

The Journal writes that Karzai "accus[ed] the U.S. of interfering in Afghan affairs and saying the Taliban insurgency would become a legitimate resistance movement if the meddling doesn't stop."

The immediate background is Karzai's attempt to take over the Electoral Complaints Commission before the September parliamentary elections. The US resists this move. Karzai is fighting for his political life by trying to ensure the US doesn't affect the elections.

The US has been trying to get rid of Karzai for some time. They tried to oust him in the Presidential elections last year, but failed when the US designee decided not to pursue a run-off election. The US then let Karzai have the presidency, but has put unremitting pressure on him to become what the US wants or to get out of the way.

Karzai is becoming more and more militant as he realizes the extent to which the US is willing to go to remove him. He has even suggested that he would support the Taliban as a legitimate opposition. He is being courageous, but he faces a powerful opponent.

As for Obama: it is not a good sign for one's war policy when the ruler of the country your are supposedly helping attacks you. Obama's only real alternative is to step up efforts to remove Karzai. But such a step would have significant negative consequences among the Afghans.

 

Afghanistan, in Today's News 03.10.10

Afghanistan. The great military campaign in Afghanistan continues to roll along. This time, the Wall Street Journal reports today, the 'allies' captured another deserted and undefended ghost town, Now Zad, a neighbor of Marjah.

Evidently no Afghan officials were available, so the victory parade consisted of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a heavily armed escort and sharpshooters on the roofs. Any remaining Afghan inhabitants had been hustled out of the way before Gates made his tour. The removal of the natives was no doubt done to endear the Now Zad inhabitants to the United States.

What have the 'allies' captured? "Now Zad has no electricity, sewage system, or running water, and there are few visible signs of new construction." Plus, few who live or work there. 

Such 'victories' are no doubt designed to 'impress' the Taliban, who are probably happy to let the 'allies' do this busy work while the Taliban concentrates its forces elsewhere. Are the 'allies' also trying to impress Obama that they are really doing something?

Afghanistan, in Today's News 03.04-07.10

Afghanistan. On to Kandahar!!!  The United States and its 'allies' having conquered a rural and mostly deserted, undefended Marjah, is now ready to push on to Kandahar. 

Kandahar is a city of some 700,000 that is supposedly a center of the Taliban. The US strategy is to form a security zone around the city, to cut off inflow and outflow of the Taliban.

This action may have been a good idea in the middle ages when a castle or walled city was put under siege. But in the context of the modern world and the current type of warfare, the security zone is doomed to futility. First, in the terrain of Afghanistan, the 'allies' cannot hope to seal off the city. 

Second, all 700,000 inhabitants can't be Taliban. Thus, it is inevitable that lots and lots of innocent people are going to be antagonized by the inconvenience of check points, and especially check points by foreigners. 

Third, the surrounding tactic has been tried many times since World War II, all without success. The first attempt was in Algeria, where the French tried fruitlessly to isolate the Casbah. It didn't work and the French soon went home.

But, this is the type of strategy that the Israelis advocate and carry out against the Palestinians. And therefore, given the present mind-frame in Washington, the American war-planners think the strategy has to be a good one.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 02.22-27.10

Afghanistan. The media's pravda-like coverage of the US offensive in Marjah, Afghanistan continues. One would think that the US is completing a magnificent strategic and tactical victory. The reality is quite a bit different.

The latest achievement is the arrival in Marjah of the Afghan-appointed new administrator of the area. The media describes this event as a turning point, as a key event in eventual success. Take a look at the reality:

There is no government building in Marjah. Lack of security is such a problem that this new official spent his first night in a simple tent in the middle of a heavily armed security zone. His tent had a red rug with floral designs and a cot. He received military meals. Hail the conquering hero! [Sarcasm]

The rest of the bureaucracy (health, schools, utilities) that will be imposed on Marjah has yet to make it there. One can easily understand their fear.

The Wall Street Journal (February 24) described the situation with the Afghan police: "The biggest challenge for the government, Afghan officials acknowledge, will be to reverse the damage done by the national police who served in the town before the Taliban takeover. Locals uniformly [!] complain the police were brutal and corrupt." [!]

Another big victory was recored. Three (yes, three, count them) elders played up to the US forces, telling a tale of how they rebuffed the Taliban. Such confessions are suspect, of course, when there is a power around that has millions of dollars to distribute.

To win support, the US forces distributed food. "After the food distribution some 20 [yes, 20, again count them] men signed up with the Marines for $5-a-day jobs cleaning roads and irrigation canals." [Sarcasm added.]

The final stupendous [sarcasm] achievement has been the hoisting of the Afghan flag in Marjah. This was supposed to signify something, but who knows what. It occurred surrounded by a heavy 'allies' military presence at a empty building that is now called the government offices.

And so, the 'allies' great military action continues its merry way. In the meantime the Taliban struck again in the capital, Kabul, with a three-hour battle that was heard throughout the city. In the aftermath, a key hotel and two guesthouses were found to be severely damaged.

So, while the allies continue their make-believe in Marjah, the Taliban is massing its forces in Kabul, preparatory to driving the Karzai and his government out of power.

Is there anyone who does strategic thinking for the 'allies?'

Afghanistan, in Today's News 02.17-21.10

Afghanistan. It is difficult to figure out whom the US government is trying to fool with their offensive in Afghanistan. Is it themselves, the military, the Taliban, the Afghan government, the American public? Who?

The question has to be asked because the media coverage is so different from the reality. The media seem to think the offensive in Marjah is one of the greatest battles in American military history. But is it really? What is this Marjah place anyway? Just what are the 'allies' conquering?

Marjah is an agricultural center of some 75,000 people spread over a wide area. The central buildings (the government office, schools) are mere shells and have not functioned for years. The irrigation canals have fallen into disuse with garbage and refuse filling them up. Most people have left the area to avoid the 'allies.' 

The 'allies' have met only token resistance to their full-scale invasion of some 15,000 troops. (Does it really take a fully-armed force such as this plus helicopters to capture what is almost a ghost town?) 

The Afghan government is even more of a joke. The Wall Street Journal revealed that President Karzai had to be awakened from a mid-day 'nap' to be briefed on the offensive on the eve of the invasion. Evidently the briefing was his first acquaintance with the action, which had been reported for weeks in the American press. 

Known as the 'President of Kabul', Karzai gave his assent to the offensive, but covered his butt by saying there should be no civilian casualties. He then appointed someone to be the administer for the new Marjah. The only problem is the 'allies' know nothing of this figure, who has failed to appear in Marjah, despite the 'victory' there.

The US has no confidence in Karzai, having tried to oust him before and during the presidential elections in Afghanistan last year. The WSJ reported (2.19.10), "US officials have concluded that despite Mr. Karzai's failings as a leader, they have to find a way to make him lead if they [the 'allies'] are to succeed."

How about the Afghan army and police? WSJ (2.19.10): "The Afghan army and police are still works in progress, beset by desertions, and their members frequently picked off by the Taliban. The police are despised by many Afghans, who view them as corrupt and predatory." [!!!!!]

Meanwhile the 'allies' are announcing the capture or killing of a number of Taliban leaders, mostly in Pakistan. Whether these leaders are actually leaders is unknown. The Pakistanian forces could easily pick up anyone and claim he is a Taliban leader.

The US State Department sent an official to Marjah to see if the area was ready to be transformed by American plans and money. His conclusion: "I don't think we are there yet." (WSJ 2.20.10) Why did he conclude this? WSJ: the official found "the town so devastated by years of war and neglect that it was hard to imagine scores of civilians setting up shop there very soon."

The official is quoted upon seeing the ruins of the government center, "Is there a good part of town?"  Further, "Where are the Afghans?"

To sum up: the US is conducting a major offensive to capture an area in ruins which even the Afghans have abandoned. The Afghan president appears to hardly care about the military action.

The question is, just what do the allies think they are capturing? They are seizing an area that the Taliban is perfectly willing to let them have. The Taliban only needs to do a few small-scale counterattacks to keep the 'allies' pinned down. Meanwhile the Taliban can concentrate its forces somewhere else, where the 'allies' are not.

One is almost forced to conclude that this offensive is just busy work to allow Obama time to try to get the Saudis to convince the Taliban to reach a settlement. There is no other road out for Obama. He cannot win militarily. The longer the conflict goes on, the more he will face opposition from the American public and from his own party. And the costs of the action continue to sky-rocket at a time when the public wants government costs and taxes reduced. 

Afghanistan, in Today's News 02.13.10

Afghanistan. The much publicized US and allies' offensive in Marjah, Afghanistan, has begun. The media is treating this action as if it had the importance of say, the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has a page one lead that jumps to an entire page devoted to the offensive.

But, it is all absurd. The US is in reality invading a town of some 75,000 people that threatens no one. Here's how the WSJ describes the town: "Marjah...[is] spread out over a vaguely rectangular area some 12 miles north to south, and about six miles wide at points. Much of the town is farmland, with clusters of houses and shops. It is crisscrossed with canals and irrigation ditches built with US foreign aid in the 1950." And: "Marjah...is spread over an area with no paved roads and few modern conveniences, not even regular electricity."

And so it takes a fully armed assault of 7,500 troops backed up with helicopters to capture this hapless farm area that is barely a village. The WSJ reports, "The immediate resistance to the landings [of troops] was very light..." [!!!!!]

Wow, can you imagine that. No resistance. And the media is terming this a major battle and potential victory.

In reality the 'allies' are stepping in with overwhelming military force to turn the lives of the villagers upside down. As Lt. Col. Calvin Worth, commander of the main assault force, said, "The people of Marjah will wake up to a new Afghan government tomorrow."

Lt. Col. Worth ought to be ashamed of himself. Compare his words with that of any of the founding fathers of the US regarding creating a new government. Worth's approach betrays the great ideals of the founding documents of the US, which emphasized getting rid of the foreign oppressors so that the people themselves could organize their own government.

Instead the US is bringing in what they call a "government-in-a-box," a ready-made administration that is intended to allow the Afghan government to quickly reassert its authority. 

"Coalition commanders hoped the presence of so many troops in Marjah would convince tribal elders to side with the government..." (WSJ) They won't convince anyone. They might intimidate people into tolerating the authority of the corrupt Kabul regime, but they won't convince a soul. 

This orientation is not how a Christian nation ought to act. Where is the compassion and the desire to help people with their lives as they actually exist? The orientation is instead an imitation of how the Israelis do business. Brute force to take over an area. And so we have further evidence of the de-Christian-izing of America.

It will be interesting to follow this offensive. It won't be long until the rationalizations begin to explain the lack of accomplishment.

One final note: How are the allies going to determine who is a Taliban fighter and who is a villager? The Afghan government has an answer. "Afghan soldiers know how to 'tell the difference between the terrorists and the farmers,' said Mohammad Zahir Azini, a spokesman for the Afghan military." (WSJ)

Yeah, right. How many times were similar words heard in Vietnam where whole villages were destroyed to 'save' them? Any Afghan males in Marjah over about 12-years-old would be well advised to run for their lives if they don't want to be shot or end up in some stockade. 

Afghanistan, in Today's News 02.11.10

Afghanistan. The soon-to-occur, much heralded US military offensive in the Marjah district of Afghanistan is receiving lots of media coverage. The Wall Street Journal today has a 27-inch article on page A17.

The gist of the offensive seems to be to establish a US foothold in the area and move the district into the central government's sphere of authority. The problem is that the local population wants nothing to do with it. As the district governor says, "People here are on the side of the insurgency and have no trust in the government. Insurgents are in their villages 24 hours." [Quoted in the WSJ.] 

To get a flavor of the atmosphere, read what Lt. Col Reik Anderson, a battalion commander, has to say. "Villagers were just livid with me. Because so much lethality was going on, they said that the kids are crying, the women are scared" whenever helicopters appear. [Quoted in the WSJ.]

The people in these villages have lived a certain way for hundreds of years. To say the least, their ways are settled. Now the US comes along and intends to set up a whole different way of life with western-oriented hospitals and schools, etc. It is natural that the villagers would be distrustful of this change, especially when it is not understood, and especially when it is imposed by military force.

Can the US prevail? Well, the American forces have dubbed Pashmul, a cluster of villages west of Kandahar city as "the heart of darkness." That kind of lack of respect for a culture that has existed longer than the US is easily spotted by the villagers. Their resistance cannot be broken simply because they have no use for a country and culture that lords it over them and insists that the villagers' way of life is no good.

Anyone who has lived through the Vietnam war will recognize the US verbiage and tactics being used here. The Vietnamese didn't appreciate it too much, and neither will the Afghans. 

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 02.02.10

Afghanistan. Today's Wall Street Journal has a report on the 'allied' plans to secure Kandahar in the spring of this year. The plans come complete with three concentric rings: a ring of stability, a ring of security, and a ring of deep fight. The allied coalition plans to stabilize this spring the stability ring, which includes Kandahar and major satellite towns.

One wonders if they have stopped studying history at the military academies. There is nothing new is these plans. They have all been tried before, many times, as far back as Algeria. These type of plans have failed each time.

Why have they failed? Because it is all paper, dreamed up schemes, that have nothing to do with the real life in the war situation. It is epitomized by a statement by Canadian Brig. General Daniel Menard, the commander of the Task Force Kandahar, "They [the Taliban] will not fight us when and where they want. We will fight them when and where we want, and that is a huge change."

This is just dreaming. Already in the last two weeks the Taliban has struck in their own fashion where they wanted, almost toppling the Kabul regime. In the meantime the 'allies' were concentrating in a whole different area of the country.

In other words, the Taliban is fighting when and where it wants.

All this 'allied' activity comes down to busy work, designed to look like something meaningful is being done. All the while the Taliban is building its real support throughout the country.

Well, at least the next few months should be entertaining.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.30.10

Afghanistan. From today's Wall Street Journal: "Thousands of U.S. forces are massing for a coming offensive in Helmand [Afghanistan], one of the country's most violent regions."

This offensive will go nowhere. Why? Because the Taliban is one or two steps ahead of the Obama war planners.

While the US concentrates forces in one area of Afghanistan, the Taliban is attacking other areas. They are taking Stan Musial's advice: "Hit Em Where They Ain't." A couple of weeks ago, the Taliban rocked Kabul, the capital, in an attack on the center of the city. Yesterday the Taliban attacked Laskar Gah and engaged the Afghan security forces in a day-long battle. Where they will attack next is unknown, but for sure it will not be Helmand.

In the meantime, the US, its allies and the Afghan government continue their efforts to buy off a section of the Taliban. A $500 million corruption fund is being built up for this purpose. But it is a good bet that a healthy portion of the loot will end up in pockets of officials.

The US is somewhat desperate to find a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. Certainly the Obama war planners understand that this war will go on forever with no US victorious achievements. And in the meantime the American public and the left wing of his own party will grow impatient. Plus, Obama is under pressure to reduce spending while the war drains away money.

And thus the Obama people have sought to make back-door contact with the Taliban to reach a settlement. The US primarily went into Afghanistan to disrupt a training and organizing center for the enemies of Israel and its client state, the USA. The US would be willing to reach an agreement (with Israel's ok) if the Taliban would limit themselves to Afghanistan and cease efforts outside of Afghanistan's borders.

To this end, the United Nations' top representative to Afghanistan met with the Taliban recently to find a diplomatic solution. The results of this contact are unknown to the public right now.

But, it is reasonable to assume that the Taliban is in no mood to negotiate. Why should they? The momentum is on their side. The longer the US is involved, the greater will be the pressure to get out. And time will certainly not strengthen the Afghan government.

There is no easy way out for Obama.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.29.10

Afghanistan. The London conference on wishful thinking and excursions into never-never-land concluded yesterday. Afghan President Karzai and representatives of 65 other countries have been meeting to discuss and determine the future of Afghanistan. It is as if these people are living on another planet or are from another dimension.

The conference communique stated that, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the Afghans will take the lead in securing the most volatile parts of the country within three years, with the first provinces potentially passing to Afghan control by the end of this year." Karzai even said in his address to the conference that "Afghan forces will take control of physical security of the whole country within five years."

All this regarding a government that was almost overthrown a couple of weeks ago. All this regarding a government that controls nothing in the country except the capital, Kabul. All this regarding a President the US tried to get rid of just a few months ago. All this regarding a President, some of whose military advisors aided an assassination attempt against him. All this regarding an American strategy for Afghanistan that is designed to simply hold the fort rather than trying to defeat the Taliban.

In other words, the plans of Karzai and the conference have no possibility of success or even minimal achievement. 

Further details of a now crowned "Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund" were also revealed. Japan, the United Kingdom and others are planning to raise $500 million to reach out to militants to give them "a way back into mainstream life on the condition they renounce violence." 

Karzai also promised to make a "key focus" the fighting of corruption. It is a well-known strategy to combat corruption by having $500 million laying around in a poor country. [Sarcasm.]

Karzai told the meeting he intends to invite the Taliban leaders to a tribal conference. This ought to be good. Not only will the Taliban not attend, but the conference itself will be another of those CIA-type front organizations.

In short, Afghanistan, from the point of view of Obama and friends, is going you-know-where in a hand-basket. And yet Obama and his allies engage in the most delirious of delusions about how the situation is steadily improving.

Just wait for the Taliban's next show of force to see all these grandiose plans go up in smoke.

On a humorous note, Obama let Hillary Clinton feel important by addressing the conference. Most of her remarks were just a tired reiteration of Obama-talk. Then she took it upon herself to tell Afghanistan how it should run itself. "Afghan women must not be viewed [by whom?] simply as victims who need to be sheltered. They must be respected and valued as leaders -- a treasury of untapped talent that Afghan society needs." Other cultures are always receptive to being told they "must" do something. [Sarcasm.]

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.28.10

Afghanistan. American fruitless efforts to snooker all or a part of the Taliban continue.

An international conference of some 60 foreign ministers is meeting now in London to discuss the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. To reach that time, this conference is usurping the independence of Afghanistan and telling them how to build their security forces, army, etc.

But, the significant revelation at the conference is the existence of a fund whose donors include the US, UK and Japan, the purpose of which is to 'help' former Taliban members to integrate into the Afghan government's version of reality. The fund is Japan-led and will be run by the Afghans. Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, plugged the fund to the conference.

Comments:

1. If the 'allies' really believe that a fund like this is going to have an appreciable effect on the Taliban, they are gravely mistaken. Individual members of the Taliban can see that the Taliban will ultimately win the battle with the Karzai government, probably sooner than later. They have no incentive to accept a bribe from the US, Japan et al. In fact, accepting the money would only stigmatize the recipient.

2. Does anyone think that a fund run by the Afghan government will remain corruption-free? The great likelihood is that the big bucks will find their way into the pockets of any Afghan leader powerful enough to take the money. And there are plenty of those leaders.

3. The conference itself is kind of a joke. The US can only persuade a few countries to participate militarily in the Afghan war. So, to appease American critics and to get some of the financial burden off its shoulders, the US has convened these 60 nations. The conference is supposed to give the impression that Afghan policy is decided by many, many countries. This is a joke. The US will do the deciding. The fact that Hillary Clinton is at the conference gives some indication how little this conference has to do with the war planning in Washington.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.25.10

Afghanistan. About a week after the Taliban waged a day-long battle in the center of power in Kabul, the Afghan government has announced that the parliamentary elections will be postponed until September. Is there a connection between the two events? You betcha. 

The Taliban attack revealed that the Afghan government is completely isolated. An election at this time would only confirm the isolation. And so, Karzai and his American buddies have decided that it is the better part of wisdom for Karzai to simply and dictatorially avoid the elections, in the hope that things will be better eight months from now.

The delay won't work, but that is Obama's problem.

Simultaneously the Obama team has been trying to signal the Taliban that a deal is possible. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted in Pakistan saying, "The Taliban, we recognize, are part of the political fabric of Afghanistan at this point. The question is whether they are prepared to play a legitimate role in the political fabric of Afghanistan going forward -- meaning participating in elections, meaning not assassinating local officials and killing families."

Translated: 'we used to say the Taliban was evil incarnate. Now we are willing to say they are a legitimate political entity and to stop the fighting if they agree to participate in the political process.'

The Taliban, of course, has no reason to make such a deal. They have the Afghan regime isolated and the US scrambling for face-saving. Why should they make a deal in those circumstances? They have victory in sight. Why not go for it?

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.20.10

Afghanistan. The Obama brain trust is beginning to come to grips with the seriousness of the situation they now face in Afghanistan after the all-day battle in Kabul on Monday.

The US is now involved in more than a war with a Islamist-oriented Taliban. It now has to deal with a war that is led by an established leader of Afghanistan, whose father is a hero for his fight against the Russians a couple of decades ago. Sirajuddin Haqqani has stepped forward to organize the assault on the Karzai regime.

This development means the US now has a generalized war on its hands. The isolation of the Karzai government is near complete and only capable of surviving by virtue of the US military strength. The Obama team now has to think out whether it wants to deepen the war or whether it can construct a means to get out. With the Israelis looking over Obama's shoulder the US administration faces some very difficult decisions.

The Wall Street Journal today says that Haqqani "has become ruthless in his own pursuit of an Afghanistan free from foreign influence." The WSJ quotes Haqqani, "We have managed to besiege the Afghan government."

The WSJ also reveals today that the current 'surge' of American troops "...is based on a strategy of applying sufficient pressure on some Taliban leaders that they will negotiate for terms acceptable to Washington." A careful reading of the news would indicate that Obama had tried unsuccessfully to negotiate before his surge decision. But, today's statement is the first time the Obama team has admitted the attempt at negotiations.

The entrance of Haqqani into the equation changes everything. No longer is the US dealing with some Taliban leaders they thought they could pressure. Now they have to deal with two parties with their own interests, and one of them is proving to be adamant in his determination to rid Afghanistan of US presence.

Moreover, Haqqani's interest is not limited to Afghanistan. His base is in Pakistan and (WSJ) "...has become arguably the most important Islamist militant haven in the region..." 

And listen to this, "Mr. Haqqani has emerged as a powerbroker on both sides of the border. He has ties to almost every major faction in the confederation of groups operating under the Taliban umbrella. He has the strongest links to Al Qaeda of any major Taliban faction...While pledging allegiance to [Taliban chief] Mullah Omar, he operates independently, choosing his own targets and only loosely coordinating with the Taliban's supreme leadership." [!!!!] [Bracketed words added.]

The Karzai regime is hanging by a thread:

The Haqqani forces attacked at the center of power: "...Pashtunistan Square, which is ringed by the central bank, the entrance to the presidential palace, as well as several [key] ministries, a shopping center [that was destroyed] and a luxury hotel." [Bracketed comments added.]

Karzai would be well-advised to not turn his back on anyone: "...Mr. Haqqani has cultivated high-level double agents inside the Afghan government--including senior military and police officers, some of whom are suspected of having aided an assassination attempt on President Karzai..."

Karzai has no allies at all: "US officials have long alleged that Pakistan tolerates and even aids [!] Mr. Haqqani, so he can be used to maintain its influence in Afghanistan after an eventual American withdrawal." [Emphasis added.]

Karzai's government seems doomed. The US has few options. In the long run they can either escalate the war or get out. In the short run, Obama is putting pressure on Pakistan to crack down on Haqqani, a gambit that is sure to produce very little.

Stay tuned. Afghanistan moves closer and closer to being the determinant of peace and war in this world.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.19.10

Afghanistan. A bit more news appeared today on the Taliban's attack on the points of power in Kabul. It is clear that the all-day battle was considerably more significant than originally reported or that the reporters are willing to admit.

From today's Wall Street Journal: "The Taliban launched a coordinated attack on the Afghan capital Monday, paralyzing the city for most of the day as militants set off explosions, took over buildings and attempted to disrupt the swearing-in of new cabinet members." The WSJ neglects to mention that the buildings attacked were key government ministries as well as a shopping mall, which was burnt down.

"The assault, claimed by the Taliban and believed to be carried out by members of an allied militant network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani was among the most spectacular in Kabul in recent years...aiming to to embarrass President Hamid Karzai's administration and to showcase the insurgency's reach."

Well, yes, they were trying to 'embarrass' Karzai...by challenging his hold on political power in the country!! The fact that the attack included non-Taliban forces indicates that the Karzai regime is isolated. 

The next insurgents' attack may take over and hold government buildings, which would obviously be the end of Karzai's government. And it would force the US to make some uncomfortable decisions.

It is also interesting that the Taliban attack points out the weakness of the Obama plan. "President Barack Obama is sending some 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan this year, mostly to Taliban strongholds in the south and east of the country. Few of these troops will be heading to Kabul..."

It's almost as if the Taliban is thinking, 'OK, if you are going to concentrate in the south and east, then we will concentrate in Kabul, which is actually a help because the government can be toppled in Kabul.'

Obama will be facing some big decisions on Afghanistan before long.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.18.10

Afghanistan. The media seems to think that there is little to say about Afghanistan since Obama made his troop decision. But, in actuality, significant events are occurring there which indicate Obama is headed for big trouble.

It was minimally reported today that the Taliban fought government forces in the streets of Kabul on Monday. From the AP, "Taliban militants launched a series of attacks Monday in the heart of the Afghan capital, prompting fierce gun-battles with Afghan troops after a suicide bomber blew himself up near the presidential palace.

"It was the latest attack showing the insurgents' ability to penetrate the heavily secured city, even near the presidential palace and government ministries. The attackers also targeted the Defense Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the luxury Serena Hotel, which is frequented by Westerners."

Attacks on the central organs of political power in a capital city usually occur near the end of a civil war. That the Taliban could pull off such an attack and maintain it for a day or so, indicates that the Afghan government's isolation is near complete. No amount of American troops can save the regime in such a situation. For example, several hundred thousand US troops could not prevent the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government.

It will take some time for all this to play out, but the handwriting is clearly on the wall for those who want to look. Certainly the brain-trust of the Obama administration is aware of the deteriorating conditions throughout Afghanistan. Their lack of response would tend to indicate that they have no viable options.

The US does have one option, and it is a scary one. One way to solve Afghanistan is to subsume that war into a larger war. Turning Pakistan and Afghanistan into one big war zone is one possibility. Another is the Israeli proposal to militarily attack Iran, which would precipitate a wider mideast war.

The Obama team is content for now to try to disrupt Iran through CIA intrigues and through supporting opposition elements, in the hope of an Iranian regime change. But, when that particular gambit turns up little, Obama will be faced with the Israeli alternative.

The media may give the impression that the world is basically stable, but the reality is that a big-time war is close at hand. 

Afghanistan, in Today's News 12.02.09

Afghanistan. "Obama Bets Big on Troop Surge," Wall Street Journal lead headline on page one today.

Well, he tried everything. He tried to get rid of Afghanistan President Karzai. He tried elections in Afghanistan. He tried to snooker the Taliban. He tried to ignore the problem. He threw the issue to his advisors. He tried to get the "allies" to take more of the burden. He hoped for a miracle. He procrastinated and procrastinated. 

In the end, nothing worked. And Obama is right back where he started, except the situation has worsened. He faces an Afghanistan government that is at best less-than-friendly. The Afghan government has little-to-no support in the Afghan public. The Taliban has gained strength to a surprising extent to the point where they are actually challenging the government in significant military battles. He has a split in his own political party, with the left, who were critical to his election, alienated. The 'allies' are none too fond of the predicament Obama puts them in when he requests more aid and troops. And the American public is war-weary.

And so, Obama is forced after all to follow the advice of the military, toning it down a bit and setting an impossible deadline. He says he will send in 30,000 more troops and begin withdrawing them in 18 months.

Obama knows full-well that 30,000 troops will do nothing to change things. Today's news' coverage says little about the military strategy to be followed. But, a week or so ago, the reportage was that the reinforcements will come with a new strategy: to isolate Kandahar and to secure the roads. This is not a strategy to pursue the war and try to win. It is a strategy to hopefully keep Afghanistan from blowing up in Obama's face.

And why 18 months from now to begin withdrawing? Eighteen months is getting close to the next election. If Obama thinks that withdrawing a few troops before the election will help his re-election prospects, he is seriously deluded.

Afghanistan will not go away. It will continue to haunt the Obama administration. This is so because the war is a proxy war, not in the interests of America foreign policy. The war is fought because Israel wants it fought. Israel's interest is for the US to keep Israel's enemies bottled up. American forces being bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq suits Israel just fine. 

Israel's ultimate plan for Afghanistan lies through Iran. The idea is that Afghanistan will take care of itself when Iran is chopped off at the knees. In other words Israel is looking to a major mideast war to establish Israel as the predominant power that all other countries in the area will be beholden to.

Obama and his zionist advisors and backers are not necessarily opposed to this strategy. It's just that the timing is off. A war with Iran right now would get in the way of all the other Obama plans, not the least of which is to make Obama the world's most influential politician, which then would make the war on Iran easier to pull off.

Obama is caught in a dilemma in Afghanistan. He is stuck where he is until some bigger pieces of the world strategy fall into place. It is not likely that those pieces will occur soon. And so, Obama tries to hang on in Afghanistan hoping that Afghanistan won't fall apart.

Needless to say Afghanistan is at the center of world politics. It goes right to the heart of all the current issues, because Israel's need to dominate is so well demonstrated. 

The Church leaders, however, seem sublimely oblivious to the whole thing. They say very little about it, and show no indication that they have any understanding of what is involved. There was a time when the Church leaders were on top of what is happening in the world and endeavored to keep the faithful informed. Now, it seems that the Church leaders are too interested in being accepted by the media and others to have any desire to learn about the objectives of the world powers.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 11.02.09

Hillary Clinton. She's done it again. Another disastrous trip as Secretary of State to foreign lands. Clinton is proving to be one of the worst Secretaries of State in the nation's history.

1). Clinton made her first official trip to Pakistan to, as the Wall Street Journal put it, "to smooth relations strained by terms of an American aid package for the key South Asian ally."  WSJ: "Clinton said she will seek to clarify issues related to the aid during her meetings with Pakistani officials...while also working to forge closer economic, diplomatic and cultural ties."

And so, what happened?  "A stream of people grilled Mrs. Clinton on the merits of a new multibillion-dollar US aid bill for Pakistan that they claimed was tailored to constrain Islamabad's military and nuclear programs. Lahore university students argued that the Pentagon's drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan's tribal regions were increasingly causing violence to spill out into their country's major cities and urban areas."

Of course, Clinton took the bait, lost her cool, and insulted her hosts. "In a particularly blunt exchange, Mrs. Clinton told a gathering of newspaper editors that the US didn't believe Pakistan's government had done all it could to hunt al Qaeda leaders...whom Washington believes are still hiding in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan."

In other words, Clinton succeeded in doing just the opposite of her stated goal of smoothing relations.

In her defense, it is possible that Clinton was set up by the Obama team. Obama's people were surely aware of the Pakistan discontent with the new aid package. They could have reasoned, 'send Clinton and let her take the heat.' It's a lose-lose situation for her, and a winner for the Obama people.

2). After the Pakistan debacle, Clinton travelled to mid-east for two days "aimed at getting the Palestinians and the Israelis to return to peace talks..." (WSJ). To which one can only comment, 'you got to be kidding!!'

Clinton thinks that she can swoop in for a couple of days and the forces who have been battling for decades will suddenly recognize her superior wisdom and return to negotiations.

Even so, she managed to screw things up a bit further. She positioned herself closer to the Israeli policy of settlements, and as a result the Palestinians strengthened their resolve to stay away from negotiations.

In other words, Clinton achieved just the opposite of what she set out to do.

The media, of course, gives her every break. But, the Obama team knows all the better why it is crucial to keep her away from the administration's key foreign policy discussions and actions.

One other comment: in reading Clinton's various statements on these trips, it becomes clear that her knowledge of the situations is no greater than what one would get from reading the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

Afghanistan, in Today's News 10.23.09

Afghanistan. The United States now has two weeks to undermine Afghan President Karzai before the second round of national voting. The goal is to so discredit Karzai that he loses the election. Baring that, the hope is to weaken him so much that he is forced to share power with someone who is more devoted to American war aims. 

The United States effort is off to a flying start. The Afghan Independent Election Commission [the 'independent' presumably means independent of Karzai] announced that "2,000 to 25,000 [voting] stations won't open, most of them in restive eastern and southern Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai's main base of support." [!!!!!] The Wall Street Journal (today, page A14) reports, "U.N. representatives have been pushing for more stations to remain closed..."

Well, that's one way to vote Karzai out of office. Don't let his supporters vote!!

******

The Obama strategy for Afghanistan is becoming clear. The 'strategic review' for Afghanistan was simply a means of gaining time so that the elements of the new United States policy could fall into place. Obama is shooting for a settlement in Afghanistan that will allow US troops to be reduced, even withdrawn. Thus Obama is choosing the 'declare victory and get out' option.

Obama needs to accomplish two things to make it work. First, he needs a deal with the Taliban that they will leave al Qaeda behind and join a reconciliation government. Backdoor diplomatic efforts are now occurring to see if it is possible. The current Pakistan offensive against the Taliban helps put pressure on the Taliban to reach a settlement.

Second, Obama needs to get Karzai out of the way. He must either go, or agree to join a power-sharing government that ideally would include a tamed Taliban. The next two weeks will tell the tale of this adventure.

This strategy is a gamble for Obama, especially because it puts the Taliban in the driver's seat. The more the Taliban holds out, the more likely will they be able to call the shots on a new government, within limits of course.